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:Roy Bahat Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Collodion process Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Gene Dodaro Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Ginkgo biloba Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Oxford Health Plans Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Ranker Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Zions Bancorporation

User:Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and Haaretz

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.

---

• 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": [1]. 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)

François Robere, to clarify: I do not think there is a conflict of interest here. Firefangledfeathers 06:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thank you for clarifying. Back to my original question: you fear that sources could restrict critical editors, but what about editors restricting critical sources? Jan Grabowski is a well known "new school" historian, who was one of the sources for the Haaretz piece. After the piece was published, Grabowski wrote a critical article for Gazeta Wyborcza,[2] and Piotrus replied.[3] I believe this makes him as much a "subject" here as an "editor", and letting him to edit the BLP and related articles[4] gives him, in affect, power over the BLP. To be clear, I'm not saying Piotrus abused that power (though I certainly wouldn't have made that particular edit), but Policy is here to prevent just that. François Robere (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. FYI, the ping you added to the top of your comment didn't work, as successful pings need a new line addition and a signature. The edit summary ping worked just fine.

I'd have to review the Grabowski situation more to have an informed opinion, and I am hindered by limited Polish (understatement). I feel the community has its hands full with the Haaretz issue, and would suggest starting a separate discussion after this one.

About your original question: I don't think critical coverage of editors generates a COI. Analogously, journalists who are criticized by politicians are not pulled from the bull pen. I would feel differently if the editors here were removing content that names them, but I think we all agree that content would be inappropriate. Firefangledfeathers 17:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: It's interesting you wrote journalists who are criticized by politicians are not pulled from the bull pen because "pulling from the bull pen" is exactly what Piotrus and VM are doing to Haaretz: they're removing Haaretz from Wikipedia articles. It's the reverse of your analogy: if a newspaper criticized a politician, can the politician pull the newspaper from the bull pen? I'd say no. Same here. Levivich 17:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing sources from Wikipedia is common practice. If done erroneously or in bad faith, we have existing procedures to fix the issue. Firefangledfeathers 18:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

COIN is one of those existing procedures, eh? :-) The issuing of press credentials is also common practice. And actually, removing sources from multiple articles, and then after they've been reinstated and stable with consensus for two years, coming back and removing them all again, is not common practice on Wikipedia. Anyway, so your answer is "yes": if a newspaper criticizes a politician, it's OK for the politician to exclude the newspaper? I disagree with that. Levivich 18:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

My answer would be no. It's happened in my country somewhat frequently in recent history, and I condemn it every time. Sometimes a media outlet is pulled from a press pool for reasons besides critical coverage, though others question if those reasons are the true ones. Firefangledfeathers 18:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: With that I agree, but you will agree that in such cases the fact of the criticism is often common knowledge, and the newsroom is able to review the journalist's work and set limitations as needed, so as to prevent retaliation and minimize bias. What mechanisms have we for the same, other than this very thread? François Robere (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I can understand if Piotrus and Volunteer Marek view this thread as a sort of attack, but I'm uninvolved and think it's ok to reflect on whether their editing behavior is reasonable. I find that in this case it is. The mechanism appears to be working well. I would be disheartened to see this end with a finding that the two editors do have COI in this area, and I particularly worry about the precedent it might establish. Firefangledfeathers 21:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Reasonable editing does not exclude you from having a COI (WP:COINOTBIAS). I haven't seen anyone saying that we should exclude them from the area, just any content surrounding the particular source. The article written about you can't remove you from editing in a topic in general, just from engaging in that article specifically. The determination of the dueness of the source can be entrused with other editors not named. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You've pinged me but might be responding to someone else's argument. I wouldn't say my points have relied on reasonableness as a defense against COI. Firefangledfeathers 03:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: You're right, I misinterpreted that as relevant to the conversation. Do your points depend on the potential to establish a precedent that excludes the editors from editing the area? If so, could you point out a single person arguing for their exclusion from any topic areas? Or is that irrelevant musings too? Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:26, 30 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") (Volunteer Marek - didn't sign) 22:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a case where there was some misinformation or hoax with something other than Wikipedia, with a similar situation on how it was learned about in mass media - but for sake of argument, lets say it was still related to WWII issues like this one. In this case, we have no idea what happened exactly behind the scenes, and as Hareetz is generally a reliable source, we'd have to take their word at it -- but we also are aware Haaretz has a pro-Israeli slant, so per WP:NPOV (more specifically WP:YESPOV, we'd want to stick to the parts of the story that aren't pointing blame, but simply reporting the fundamental facts. This capabilities is not OR, as it is built into NPOV. Now in this case, we actually know what happened (and more than what Haaretz reported) to be confident that their factual presentation of materials is correct, but everything else atop is pushing the YESPOV aspect. So in the same situation we know how to extract the most relevant material. Is it UNDUE? A line or two in a few places is not UNDUE.

Also, I did support the idea this is not so much COI (see above) but simply more an edit warring/behavior issue against what seemed to be established consensus. As I mentioned, if this scenario was COI, that would also prevent users incorporating positive coverage of Wikipedia where appropriate if they were mentioned (such as Doc James). --Masem (t) 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, an obvious solution then would be to find ANOTHER source, which isn't so deeply compromised both by its origin (indef banned user) and by the heaps of plainly ridiculous claims about other things, and use that to source the basic info you refer to. I actually wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as it was truly a different source and not just a reprint/derivative of the Haaretz article. Except.... afaik, no such other source exists. Which brings us back to the fact that it's UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 04:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

There is the Christian Davies source (in May 2019) [5] that (going by Hareetz's report) was the catalyst to review if the article was perpetuating the misinformation. It mentions "Wikipedia entries were changed" to align with this. One could also use this 2021 Hareetz article [6] which talks about the Wikipedia problem in light of having Holocaust information online and avoiding misinformation at both Wikipedia and Facebook. That article avoids any name-calling in the Wikipedia problem, outside of affirming it came from this "Polocaust" (Davies' term). Now I would agree that we don't need prose-space in the non-Wikipedia related articles - I suggested before just a footnote to explain that Wikipedia had this information until it was disproven per Davies in May 2019 - and only a brief summary on the pages documenting WP's well-known errors. The fact it was pointed out by a banned editor doesn't change the fact we had that error for 15 years. --Masem (t) 05:23, 28 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)

a topic with which they have a direct personal involvement This is false. There was no "direct personal involvement". Please stop posting things which are just plainly not true. Volunteer Marek 23:37, 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.[7]. 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 [8]

    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)
      • Marek, you are indeed involved in perpetuating the hoax, as the article and its diffs reveal User:Softlavender? Go screw yourself. I am nor have every perpetuated ANY hoax and have never been involved in any of it. There are no "diffs" that "reveal it". You. Are. Lying. About. Me. This is an extremely serious accusation, it is 100% false, and "go screw yourself" is about as polite of a response as can be made in that situation. Volunteer Marek 23:21, 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)

      No they are NOT! Stop. Lying. Even that crappy Haaretz article does not say I had anything to do with that Warsaw Concentration article. Because I didn't. Did you even read the article you're relying on? This is 100% bullshit. Volunteer Marek 23:21, 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)

      • You're perfectly capable of reading the Haaretz article yourself; the links are clearly identified there No no no. Noooooooooooo. No, you don't get to do that. You don't get to lie about somebody like that and then when you get called out on your lie go "you can find the evidence yourself". No no no. You made the accusation, you provide the evidence. Where are the diffs? Where in that article (as crappy as it is) does it accuse me of "perpetuating a hoax". Strike your comments and stop lying about me. Volunteer Marek 23:23, 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[9] followed by one more[10] also in 2009. Total 2 edits. The next one was on August 3/21 [11]. 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)

      Levivich is just dishonestly posting a diff hoping no one would look at it. Notice he doesn't even have the guts to say "here is the diff of VM perpetuating a hoax". Rather he says "I raised this" ... and provides a diff that shows nothing of the sort. What Levivich and Softlander are trying to pull here - make odious awful false accusations against other editors is some Icewhiz-level manipulation and lying. Volunteer Marek 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

      @Softlavender - I'm disappointed Softlavender. You accused an editor of perpetrating a hoax. When I asked you to provide evidence for that heavy claim, you told me to look for them myself[12]. It would be very helpful and appropriate if you removed that accusation or provided proof (you claim exists) that VM was involved in perpetrating a hoax. Could you do that for me, please? GizzyCatBella🍁 23:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

      Please read and quote what I wrote, not what yo think I wrote. Softlavender (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

      • @Softlavender: Here's what you wrote: you are indeed involved in perpetuating the hoax. GCB asked you to remove that false accusation. You then respond with "please read and quote what I wrote". Well. This is what you wrote. Stop trying to evade responsibility for the fact that you made a false and disgusting personal attack against another editor and now you don't even have the simple decency to remove it so you're obfuscating. Volunteer Marek 00:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

        @Softlavender

        quote 1 ---> Marek, you are indeed involved in perpetuating the hoax.. [13]

        quote 2 ---> You're perfectly capable of reading the Haaretz article yourself.... Please don't waste my...time [14] - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

        Exactly. Now please strike what you accused me of saying here and here and here, and re-word it with what I actually said. Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

        • User:Softlavender are you seriously claiming that you did NOT accuse me of perpetuating a hoax? Wth? Volunteer Marek 01:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

          Excuse me User:Softlavender? Are you claiming you didn’t say? Marek, you are indeed involved in perpetuating the hoax..?[15] and you didn’t tell me to read article (look for diff’s) myself[16]? Your message is obvious. Well, this is unreal, why you are choosing to take this route is beyond me... greatly disappointed - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

          To repeat, that is exactly what I said. It is not what you accused me three times of saying, and you still haven't stricken and corrected those misstatements. Softlavender (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The old perpetuating vs perpetrating. Regardless, the diffs provided in the article were, this and this. Both pertain to the Radziłów article and Volunteer Marek adding the same certain piece of information "Soviet-armed Jewish militiamen helped NKVD agents send Polish families into exile". These two edits are part of a a small disagreement between Icewhiz and VM in which Icewhiz removes the information, VM adds it back, Icewhiz removes it and writes why on the talk page, VM removes it, then adds it again realising that Icewhiz is correct. Over a time span of around an hour, two editors resolved the matter peacefully and agreed that the source didn't mention Radziłów. This is the shoddy evidence the article gives to the story that editors like VM are actively downplaying Polish violence against Jews – and in some cases are even accusing the Jews of violence against Poles. The diffs provided in the article don't even relate to Warsaw concentration camp and therefore really cannot be construed as pepetuating the hoax.

The diff provided by Levivich Special:Diff/284068613, and the following edit (didn't really look at the long thread linked) could not be considered perpetuating the hoax (IMO). The first is a simple copy edit, which, if we AGF, I don't think could be considered perpetuating the hoax. Doing some basic copy editing does not mean that you are prolonging the existence of a hoax, especially considering you don't need to know anything about the topic to make such an edit. The second was adding content that seems to be completely true. VM was simply improving the page. In terms of his edits surrounding the removal of the article; these are done in the belief that, while there was indeed false information on the article, it did not constitute the definition of a hoax. Such debates do not contribute constructively to this section, which should be solely about discussing any COI issues. I hope I didn't misinterpret your views Volunteer Marek. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, that's a good summary. Volunteer Marek 03:34, 28 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).

To explain myself: per definition provided on the COI page, WP:POTENTIALCOI says "A potential COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment but is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised.

Example: A business owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about that business, but they have no actual COI if they stay away from those pages". Substitute "business owner" with "user" and you have the situation here. Because neither of the users decided to stay away, they have COI, pretty much by definition. If the example is bad - reargue the example on the policy talk page.

Some people here have tried to say that taking the dispute off-wiki automatically strips us of any COI. (But more generally, allowing an editor like Icewhiz to manufacture a COI by going to a friendly press outlet and producing an interview which is then used as a source would effectively allow every high-profile individual to force individual editors off of pages related to them by engaging in, and then publicizing, one-sided disputes with editors.) The problem is, this is exactly the advice made to editors when we are dealing with WP:OR - get it published in a reliable source; plus, for whatever this argument is worth, this argument makes an assertion that the article was published precisely to make involved parties burdened with COI accusations. No one has evidence for that. I would believe more in revenge stories but simply to show editors as nationalist-minded editors who don't care about WP's integrity than to force them to shut up (which anyway doesn't seem to be working, judging by the volume and nature of the comments they are making).

By trying to say that users concerned should be given free hand at deleting content they believe to be portraying them in bad light (rightfully or not) you make the assumption that the RS imprimatur means little (and that indeed seemed to be the argument of the users who were asserting that it was a disguised editorial by Icewhiz). No, there is not an "Icewhiz exception", however reprehensible his behaviour was, and in fact, the Icewhiz mention, at least on the initial stages, is more an appeal to emotion than to anything else. These editors may argue on the talk page but they shouldn't be deleting the RS themselves because they consider it somehow defamatory and therefore not RS.

I will also address this fragment: If the allegation is that they are trying to suppress the article simply because it mentions them [...] - that would require extremely strong evidence to overcome WP:AGF, especially given that they were involved in the dispute long before it was printed in a position essentially identical to what they now hold, ie. there's no indication that the presence of their names in the article has any bearing on their opinion about it at all. I don't see how this should disprove the notion there exists a COI in this case. We don't have another article without their mentions to compare with, and even those that simply mention Haaretz get opposition from these same editors because, as they say, it ultimately leads to the offending article. There probably has been no change in the opinion itself but there was certainly a change in the intensity of its manifestation, otherwise no one would have rallied to revert the article's addition a dozen times.

There has also been a disingenious attempt to say that because this article was sparked by the Warsaw concentration camp errors persisting for 15 years, for which VM and Piotrus were not responsible, they do not have a COI. The WP article was only a trigger for the article, but you are here not because you were somehow responsible for the hoax there but because your other edits are discussed, in other articles, that Haaretz says is indicative of a general nationalist bent in editing in Holocaust-related articles - the Warsaw concentration camp was simply a jewel in the crown in all that, according to the newspaper. (You may disagree with the opinion but we don't mention it anyway).

I guess that the situation where something good happens about a user (the Doc James example) is a pure hypothetical unless this person boasts about the mention in the article everywhere (and yes, I would say it's better to make others decide whether mentioning the person makes sense).

What's saddest in all this discussion is that the text which Haaretz cited has never, never actually mentioned anyone by name, and no one, no one has ever said that the fact we messed this up was somehow not true. People are arguing here as if not only their lives or deaths depended on that but as if we were trying to write a new article based on Haaretz's scoop. In fact, we are barely citing one or two sentences. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Two conflicts of interest: one with the source and the other with Jan Grabowski, with whom Piotrus had a public disagreement after the piece was published.[17][18][19][20][21][22] 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" ([23]). 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 concocted 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)

@Pabsoluterince :-) thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no COI in this particular case. A conflict of interest may happen when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. (Per WP:COIN) That's is not the case here. The Haaretz article was about the concentration camp, not about editors mentioned only in passing. The Haaretz article was a story entirely based on the false testimony of the banned editor. The fabricated stories of banned Wikipedians have no place here. Editors in good standing, dishonestly libelled by banned individuals have the full right to straighten the record. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The allegation of "conflict of interest" in this case is indeed without merit.

If culpability attaches to anyone, it may more properly attach to the individual who had been in conflict with Wikipedia policies (and therefore had been banned from Wikipedia) and seems to have shown an interest in disinforming Haaretz.

Nihil novi (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• No COI. The source was not being used to cite anything that mentioned or referenced them, and even if it were, they were involved in the topic before it was published. The fact that the source was written by (and quoted) a Wikipedian who was in a protracted dispute with them makes it incredibly troubling that people are trying to seriously argue that a COI exists here - that would effectively mean that any editor in a conflict who is interviewed by a news source can effectively cripple the ability of other editors to cover the topic by mentioning everyone they are in a dispute with over it, making them unable to participate if that source is then used for vital aspects of the dispute. It is unreasonable to treat an editor as having a COI based on the actions of another editor. Beyond that, what is their "interest" in this case? If the allegation is that they are trying to suppress the article simply because it mentions them - an allegation that seems to be central to any claim that there is a COI, and yet which few people above arguing for a COI seem confident enough to even state - that would require extremely strong evidence to overcome WP:AGF, especially given that they were involved in the dispute long before it was printed in a position essentially identical to what they now hold, ie. there's no indication that the presence of their names in the article has any bearing on their opinion about it at all. Finally, I will point out that when discussing Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, at least, the question is moot anyway - WP:COI applies to articles, not to internal Wikipedia informational pages like that one (read WP:COIEDIT; every important point says article. Per WP:ARTICLE, pages in the Wikipedia space are not articles.) Remember, the purpose of that page is solely to document hoaxes so we can avoid them in the future - it is not an article, and is not intended to be a neutral, complete, or informative page in the way an article is, merely a guideline about the sorts of hoaxes we have encountered in the past. (I feel like a huge part of the problem with the massive conflict there is that people are treating it like an article rather than an internal guideline.) But more generally, allowing an editor like Icewhiz to manufacture a COI by going to a friendly press outlet and producing an interview which is then used as a source would effectively allow every high-profile individual to force individual editors off of pages related to them by engaging in, and then publicizing, one-sided disputes with editors. --Aquillion (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Aquillion - Precisely. Do you know what hurts me the most Aquillion? The fact that this former editor still gets some support here. For Christ Sake he was booted out of Wikipedia by ArbCom (for good reason) then he was slandering his opponent on Twitter - (Twitter bans him). Then goes to the press - Lord only knows which other titles other than Haaretz. His false story somehow get published by one paper and republished by a few others. Then that individual proceeds to post lies about his opponents all over the internet. Then delivers death threats to his opponents and their families. (families! kids! imagine that!). Calls his opponent's workplaces to lie about them. (Lord knows what else he was doing) Gets globally banned, but still runs countless sockpuppets here. One of those sock puppets was nearly awarded an administrative status last month (Eostrix[24]).. and we are supposed to prevent editors in good standing to clean the odour after that terrifying individual? No way. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Reprehensible people are able to tell the truth (not saying he is or isn't but that these are argumentum ad hominem fallacies). As it stands, yes any editor could go to a news source covering a topic and an editor and I would argue COI if they were trying to remove it. The argument does not ask for editors with an article written about them in a topic to cease editing in that topic, it just asks that they follow COI guidelines when removing the source/ content referenced by the source. The simple fact is that we are only discussing reliable sources. What are the chances that a reliable source publishes false claims, by a Wikipedia editor? Low, almost by definition. If a reliable source started to publish stories using about Wikipedians that were consistently false (an argument that needs to still take place over this content but not here), then we could downgrade them to not reliable/ unreliable when it comes to Wikipedia and the editor could remove the source with community consensus. Like I stated below, calling this a COI does not mean not assuming good faith. I also answered your interest queries there too. In terms of the article thing, COI in a nutshell states "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships.". Debate whether COI can occur in non-article spaces is ridiculous, of course it shouldn't occur in non-article spaces. Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Whether it is true or false, and whether it is a reliable or WP:DUE source for what it says, are all utterly irrelevant to the COI question. The only question that matters when determining a COI is whether an impartial observer could reasonably conclude that they are removing it because of what it says about them (ie, the "interest" in question.) You, yourself - an observer who has clearly already taken a position against them - have already conceded that that is not the case; and obviously you had no choice but to conceded that, since given their past editing they plainly would have taken this position regardless of whether it mentioned them or not. You cannot seriously assert that an impartial observer would judge them more harshly than you are given your involvement in the dispute, and, therefore, you can no longer reasonably assert that they have a COI without engaging in obvious WP:ASPERSIONS. You need to drop this, now - it is completely unacceptable to try and taint the reputation of editors in good standing with insinuations of wrongdoing that you know, yourself, to be false. --Aquillion (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Saying that someone has a COI is not engaging in aspersions. Saying someone has a COI does not mean that they have done something wrong, nor does it taint their reputation (take a look at WP:COINOTBIAS). We all have conflicts of interest about certain things, the companies we work, the people we know... In this case they certainly haven't done anything wrong because the nature of their relationship is still being decided. If it is found that there is a COI, then they should follow COI guidelines in the future, I don't think that would mean they did anything wrong (because the policy could be considered an undecided edge case).

I disagree that the only question that matters in determining COI is whether they acted because of their conflicting interest, just that they have a conflicting interest. The intentions of the editor do not matter. No one likes having something negative written about them, no one likes the negative content being publicised (or at least one can reasonably conclude); therefore one interest of the editors would be to remove the content, the other interest is to improve Wikipedia. We know that they are acting in their interest to remove the content, what we don't know is to what extent that affected their decision (if at all). This is especially important when applying to future examples in which we know frighteningly little.

While I think in this case the interest to remove the content aligns with the editors interest to improve Wikipedia, there is a potential for an editor in the same scenario to not be acting in the interest of improving Wikipedia. By using a general interpretation of the scenario (one in which I don't have an opinion on the extent to which their competing interest affected their decision), we might be calling out a COI despite there existing no bias, but it means that people with a genuine bias won't be allowed to choose their conflicting interest over improving Wikipedia. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:COI, When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. If you are unable to claim that they have an external role or relationship that could reasonably be said to undermine their role as an editor, then they have no COI. I have repeatedly pressed you on whethe their relationship to the article can reasonably be said to undermine their role as an editor, and to my reading you repeatedly acknowledged that you cannot reasonably make that claim. Therefore, they have no COI. You engaged, and continue to engage in, WP:ASPERSIONS when you then turned around and tried to insinuate otherwise after acknowledging you couldn't support it - editing with a clear COI is obviously misconduct; claiming someone has a COI when you've effectively acknowledged they do not is therefore likewise misconduct, especially when it involves vague speculations about their motivations that you have acknowledged are unreasonable in the specifics. And while I understand your concern about being scrupulous, it's important to also acknowledge the reverse concern - when someone uses false COI claims to remove editors they are in a dispute with, that undermines WP:COI far more severely. And while I can't speak to your specific involvement, unlike you, I am willing to say, in the general case, that this is what I see here - I feel that some of the with which the attempt to remove these two users is being pressed is grounded more in an effort to remove them from the topic area (note the absurd requests from people in dispute with them to topic-ban them from the entire topic after claiming that this supposed COI was limited to one article, which rather gives the game away; note also the ridiculous extent to which people are trying to cite this article across Wikipedia, immediately followed by COI accusations if anyone even mentioned in it reacts. And you yourself have acknowledged that, even in your most extreme reckoning - one I still consider absurd and indefensible - this is a hazy borderline situation where your best argument seems to boil down to "fine, they have no actual COI, but we need to make an example of them anyway.") I do think the editors in question have managed to broadly convince themselves (although I also think it tends to fall apart when pressed on the specifics of how this supposed COI works, as I feel I've demonstrated), but the fact is that it's remarkably easy for editors to convince themselves that someone they're in an extended dispute with needs to be removed from the topic area. As you can see, even the original post in this thread - before any derailing - rather delved into a bunch of COI-unrelated complaints, such as eg. listing edits the editor found objectionable from before the supposed COI could possibly apply. --Aquillion (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

My best argument boils down to, "in the interest of transparency, these editors should not be removing the article". WP:COINOTBIAS COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. If there is a relationship, we assume there is a tendency to bias. Hence I am assuming that there is a tendency to bias and labelling it as a COI. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Aquillion Thank you for taking time to comment. Minor nitpick that is also relevant to a lot of other comments here: we should really stop calling this a "hoax". Per WP:HOAX and any random dictionary definition, a hoax implies a "deliberate attempt to mislead". There is no evidence that either the real-life originator of this WP:FRINGE theory (Maria Trzcińska), nor the editor who added it to Wikipedia (User:Halibutt, RIP) did so with the intention to mislead. Since we are focusing on Wikipedia, it's worth noting that when this was added to Wikipedia, in early 2000s, the criticism of that fringe theory was niche (just like the theory itself), it only became debunked later (at which point Halibutt moved on to editing other topics and more or less retired from serious content creaiton). Per AGF, in light of absence of evidence to the contrary (such as the admission of guilt - someting that is not uncommon, see various cases at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes) we should not call it a hoax, but an error (presenting a fringe theory as a fact or common opinion). Interested editors are invited to join the discussion at the talk of the linked wiki list (RfC link), since it probably needs review and a split (there are numerous cases beside Warsaw camp's one that while problematic and likely erroneus cannot be in good faith called hoaxes). Let's remember that calling something a hoax implies that the editor who added it was intentionally attempting to mislead others. That's a serious accusation (and conclusion) that should not be used lightly. If one of us makes an error that is not corrected until we pass, I don't think we would want - or deserve - to be called hoax perpatrators either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That is entirely unrelated to the WP:COI claims (and the extent to which everyone on both sides has dived into it - including the filer, in their very filing! - shows how little this absurd claim has to do with any actual COI concerns.) But I'll point out that I used the term only in relation to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and its purpose. I agree that editors should generally refrain from using language that obviously takes a side in the underlying dispute when discussing this, since it tends to derail discussions, but it can be hard to avoid and I also think it's a waste of time to confront them or point it out, since that just derails discussions further. --Aquillion (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Obvious COI – I've read as much of this thread as I can bear. It largely consists of the affected editors bludgeoning the discussion with defenses of their stances in this edit conflict. There is also extensive analysis and pointed assertions that a banned^{OoOoOoOoOoooo!} editor had a similar point of view. That is all entirely beside the point. Do editors have a COI regarding the inclusion of articles written about their editing? The answer is a clear yes. I find the alternative viewpoints presented here, and the repeated references to the banned status of another editor to be inadequate and digressive. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not a COI and really if you are saying it is you have a basic misunderstanding of what a conflict of interest actually is. This is also just enabling a further continuation of Icewhiz's harrassment of wikipedians he was ideologically opposed to, and the real question that should be asked here is "Why are we allowing obvious Icewhiz stooges to continue to use wikipedia to harrass people and push extremist agendas?" Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Amazing that you apparently think it's okay to call people obvious Icewhiz stooges and claim that they use wikipedia to harrass ^[sic] people. Is that the basis for your !vote? AlexEng^(TALK) 10:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  @AlexEng quite --> I've read as much of this thread as I can bear. How much did you read? next quote - It largely consists of the affected editors bludgeoning suggests you didn’t read much - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Quite enough, I dare say, GizzyCatBella—certainly enough to make an assessment. Incidentally, did you read WP:BLUDGEONING prior to making that remark? AlexEng^(TALK) 10:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  1 - this thread does not largely consists of the affected editors bludgeoning and yes I have read Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING many times before.

  2 - it appears that you don't entirely understand what WP:COI is. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  1 - Really? Perhaps I imagined the thirty-three instances of Volunteer Marek's distinctive blue/orange signature in this section? Perhaps I miscounted the fifteen instances of your distinctive maple leaf? Maybe I mistook the several walls of text as from Piotrus? Or maybe your point of view is preventing you from seeing the facts here.

  2 - Interesting point. Counterpoint: it appears that you don't entirely understand what WP:COI is. This is such a textbook example of a COI that it should be used as an example to explain the concept to new editors. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I imagined the thirty-three instances of Volunteer Marek's distinctive blue/orange signature in this section - You apparently have a problem with someone who is being attacked defending themselves? OF COURSE I answered a lot - that's kind of what you have to do when others throw false allegations at you.

    This is such a textbook example of a COI... - except it's not, as should be painstakingly obvious to anyone who's actually read WP:COI. Volunteer Marek 15:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Attacked, you say? A discussion of a potential COI is not an attack. It's not morally wrong or even against policy to have a COI. My mention of the apparent fact that you felt the need to comment so verbosely on this section is a part of my summation of the content of the discussion. You're still mistaken regarding your interpretation of WP:COI. That much is painfully obvious. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  @AlexEng -You’ve read as much as you could bare. Then you counted signatures? Well, thank you for your comments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: I counted them after you challenged what I presumed to be a pretty uncontroversial statement. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Short answer: yes when its this blatant. I really dont care if people are deliberately proxying for Icewhiz, I dont care if they are Icewhiz socks, I dont care if they are perfectly innocent independant editors who have zero knowledge or interest in Icewhiz. The end result of their actions is they are continuing Icewhiz's campaign of harrassment and ideological crusade and its needs to stop. It really doesnt matter what their actual motivation is. Perhaps 'Patsy' would be a better word than 'stooge'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Alright. The fact that several people agree on one issue with someone doesn't make them "stooges" or "patsies". It also doesn't make the expression of that opinion "harassment". It's fine to disagree. It's less fine to engage in name-calling and casting aspersions vis-a-vis the very real harassment policy. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Section break

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 - [25] - 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: [26]. 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 [27], 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)

I must say I am deeply impressed that you keep moving away from the issue at hand, COI, namely yours. The fact that Levivich did not mention any thing about the sources reliability, or the fact that he's a supposed friend of Icewhiz, becomes less impressive and more intuitive when you consider that it is beside the point. The very core of the debate is; if a wikipedia editor is mentioned in an article published (negatively or otherwise), is there a (potential) COI in adding or removing that source and information that references the source. Any looking at the reliability of the source/the person shouldn't come up here because it doesn't affect the scenario of a potential COI. In terms of COI policy I feel compelled to point some out; WP:EXTERNALREL: "Any external relationship — personal...—can trigger a COI." I believe you are externally mentioned in the article. You have a personal relationship with the article because you contributed to it and have deep misgivings about it's creation and creator. Where I think you keep stumbling is that Wikipedia:COINOTBIAS: just because you have a COI, doesn't mean that you have been biased your editing. You can have still upheld complete integrity while editing and you could be completely correct that the article doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Doesn't change the COI scenario. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you replying to me or GCB? IIRC, GCB isn't even mentioned in the article. Neither GCB nor myself contributed to it. Volunteer Marek 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I was replying to you VM. When I say contributed to the article I mean that you as a person contributed to the content of the article insofar that it mentions you. Your editing on Wikiedpia formed the basis of a section of the article.Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• A COI requires a vested interest in the subject, which in this case would have to be a desire by the editors in question to protect their reputations. Are you willing to state definitively that you believe, or at least feel that a neutral reader could reasonably believe, that Volunteer Marek and Piotrus are removing this article because it mentions them? Because I see that as a completely unreasonable assertion, to the point of being WP:ASPERSIONS - they have both been editing in this subject for an extended period of time with the same general perspective and would obviously have disagreed with using any source that heavily leaned on Icewhiz. If you are unwilling to directly make that accusation yourself, then this discussion ought to be closed now - if even you are unable to seriously express a belief in what would be the core presumption necessary for a COI to exist, then obviously none exists. (And, truthfully - and completely fair warning here - I would say that if you are willing to say it, VM and Piotrus ought to take you to WP:AE for aspersions; it is obviously an absurd accusation, hence why the massive walls of text above tiptoe around it rather than stating it outright.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

They are actively seeking out the article in unrelated areas to where they have been editing (see above) and removing it. I do not think that they are removing the article because it mentions them, none the less the act of removing the article represents a conflict of interest because it could contribute to their decision. If a reliable source wrote the most horrendous stuff about you that you knew wasn't true and removed it, it represents a COI. Even if you're removing it just because it's not true, it's in your interests to not look bad at the same time. The point of this is when the opposite happens: when a reliable source writes something horrendous against someone who knows it's true. In that case the person has the same COI as the person in the scenario prior, only they have no good intentions to remove it. In both cases the person wants to remove the content and will argue that the source is not reliable. The only way to tell them apart is to look at the claims and determine whether we believe them to be true or not. In both cases the person with the COI will argue that the claims are false and try discredit them. It is for this reason the person with the COI must not be apart of the evaluation of the source (IMO), even though in one scenario (and this one), the person is acting completely reasonably and ethically. That is why I am arguing for a COI, not because I think the editor is doing anything in bad faith, but because it sets the right precident for the same process in the future where an editor might be. Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that they are removing the article because it mentions them. Then you have no grounds to assert a COI. I'll note that the other stuff you wrote continues with the same WP:ASPERSIONS (aspersions of an accusation you now have admitted you believe to be false) - after admitting that they are not removing the article because it mentions them, you vaguely protest that it could contribute to their decision. But it did not; you've already conceded that it does not, and if you (one of the people most strongly opposed to them) is forced to concede that, then you've also admitted that no impartial observer could conclude that it contributed to them removing it. Your vague hypothetical about people removing a source that mentions them based on what it says about is irrelevant - you've conceded that they're not removing it because of what it says about them. Again, I strongly urge them to take you to WP:AE if you don't drop this - at this point you are openly trying to throw aspersions at editors in good standing that you have conceded yourself are untrue. If you continue from this point it is going to be your conduct that is going to come under scrutiny, not theirs. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I will try to make this plain. If an article writes negative things about an editor, there is a potential conflict of interest between an editors desire to improve Wikipedia and remove material that makes them look bad. Sometimes, those interests are aligned, as I believe to be true in this case: VM is removing the material because he believes he is improving Wikipedia. Sometimes those interests might not be aligned. There is no contradiction between my belief that there is a conflict of interest and my belief that VM is acting in good faith. If the next case on the COIN was an editor removing content from a reliable source that made him look bad, would you say it's a conflict of interest? Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:53, 28 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)

• I assume by "all of you" you mean "one editor", since everyone else is being rather court. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• My eyes swim reading all of this. Looking at all the arguments above I'll be as concise as I can. There is no COI. There are a lot of editors who fight about some important topics. It wears people down. I think the publication in question highlights the ugly sausagae making that is wikipedia, but I don't see COI. --evrik ^(talk) 01:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. All this sound and fury signifying nothing (more or less, as someone or other :) once said. No COI. Please find something more useful to do. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Personally I think upholding V, NPOV and COI policies is useful but don't let that get in the way of making flippant, dismissive remarks. Levivich 13:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This whole mess is entirely avoidable

This whole round-in-circles nonsense would never have occurred in the first place, if contributors didn't insist on creating navel-gazing self-referential articles like Reliability of Wikipedia. It is beyond ridiculous that Wikipedia acts as if it can become a tertiary source on itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump Good point re WP:NAVEL. Now, I am actually fine with the reliability... article - the topic is the focus of a number of academic sources. But the insistence on mentioning in a Wikipedia article that it was mentioned in some news sources is occasionally misplaced per WP:TRIVIA (and at worst, weaponized). {{Press}} on talk is usually more than enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

By that logic, most of the examples on the Reliability of WP page (near the bottom) could be called trivia, as only a few of WP's misadventures in reliability have had widespread coverage. Ignoring any of the editors/battlegrounds involved in the mess, it happened, it was fixed after 10+ yr (following the Davies article), and that it happened on WP was documented by a normally reliable source. That's definitely not trivial, but there's also no need to go farther than the top-level stuff. I appreciate that if we went any deeper than that surface level, the Hareetz article becomes very problematic, but we're just not going that far. --Masem (t) 16:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't be silly, of course Wikipedia will have articles about Wikipedia, just like Britannica has an article about Britannica [28]. It would be censorship if Wikipedia did not summarize RS about itself. Wikipedia exists in the real world and is part of it, and thus will be written about in the encyclopedia to the extent RS write about it, because Wikipedia summarizes RS. Levivich 13:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

How many articles does Britannica have about itself? ~ cygnis insignis 17:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Point well taken. But how many articles does the New York Times have about itself? Media covers itself, and it should. Levivich 17:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

How many editors does Britannica have? Britannica isn't a social phenomenon in and of itself, Wikipedia is. Wikipedia's culture, in and of itself, is WP:NOTABLE. François Robere (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• As I pointed out repeatedly, Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, where the bulk of this dispute has played out, is not an article. It is an internal guideline page intended solely to help us identify deliberate hoaxes in the future so that we can avoid problems with them if the hoaxer or others with the same methodology happen to strike again. As far as I can tell it has not been used for that purpose in ages, and I personally feel it would be better to MFD the whole thing given the amount of time and effort that has been wasted on this - tangential internal Wikipedia pages are not supposed to consume so much of our time and energy. It isn't supposed to be the place to argue over whether something is or is not a hoax (as can be seen by the fact that - to get back on topic - COI doesn't even apply there in the first place. Even NPOV and V do not apply there! It is an internal reference page, not an article; nobody should be relying on it for factual information outside of the limited internal utility it provides, and if people are, then that is a problem best solved by deleting it entirely and moving whatever information belongs elsewhere, elsewhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And you'll note that nobody filed a COIN thread back when it was just the project-space page. But since then, two actual articles. This is definitely a mainspace issue. Levivich 17:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And I want to take a minute to remind everyone of the question asked in this thread: 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? The same issues would apply to an editor adding a source to mainspace that was complimentary of the editor. Levivich 19:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

    Why do you think we need a reminder on how you composed that question Levivich? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

    Because editors are discussing off-topic topics such as whether Wikipedia should have articles about Wikipedia, whether COI applies in projectspace, whether being written about by a newspaper gives an editor a COI from the newspaper or the topic area, and whether I am Icewhiz or equivalent, among other topics. Levivich 20:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

    • I mean, I think you're getting a pretty clear answer to that above - while it's divisive, if we focus on people who were previously uninvolved in the dispute it seems pretty clear that you're not going to get a consensus to bar those removals at this point, especially given how bludgeoning by multiple editors and constant derailings into arguing over the underlying material has turned this into an unreadable mess of people shouting at each other. I would also take issue with your wording of the question - the key point, to me, is Can the editor an editor remove a newspaper article that mentions them, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia, in contexts where the material being sourced does not mention or reference that editor? The bolded point is, to me, vital because it removes any reasonable inference of a personal interest from the removal; and beyond that I feel that this dispute has spilled out into enough places without wasting additional editor time and energy with spurious requests like this. At the very least I think people who have been seriously involved in the dispute in the past should, after saying their piece, step back and let new voices weigh in. While you're hardly the only one guilty of this, I daresay everyone knows what you think at this point - it's not becoming more convincing through repetition. If you feel incredibly strongly about whether editors can remove sources that mention them, in contexts where that mention is not what the source is being used for as a general principle (rather than something specific to VM and this specific dispute), I would suggest stepping back, waiting for the specific Warsaw dispute to die down and for a consensus to be reached on where to use that particular source, then returning to the subject and discussing whether WP:COI should be updated to clarify this as a general principle. It seems clear from the breakdown above that that underlying interpretation of COI is unresolved and that trying to resolve it in the context of such an acrimonious dispute is not going to go anywhere. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
      • a pretty clear answer is definitely not what I'm getting above. I see a split of opinion and no clear consensus one way or the other, so far. Levivich 21:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

        @Levivich l.o.l. No. I’m seeing something quite opposite. There are 15 users (fast count) who believe you are wrong. Including broad explanations as to why you are mistaken, such as those of @Aquillion. How many supporters do you have Levivich? :-) Go ahead Levivich, give us the number. You can include into your calculations editors who VM named as possible sock-puppets. They always show up. You know that, right? Or do you want me to show you the diffs? GizzyCatBella🍁 23:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• As I said, I only considered the opinions of uninvolved editors (ie. not anyone who was extensively involved in the underlying dispute already), for reasons that I hope are obvious given the rancorous nature of this dispute; by that measure, my count has the results as fairly one-sided against your position. But that's not the main point - you say "so far", but I think it's fairly clear at this point that you're not going to get sufficient consensus to sanction or remove anyone here; all this is doing now is stirring up bad blood. If you're concerned with the underlying policy (which is truthfully far more important than a dispute over whether to use one source on a handful of pages), the best thing to do would be to put this down for now and wait until it has died down, then go to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest and seek clarifications to the policy on whether "editors can remove sources that mention them, in contexts where that mention is not what the source is being used for" so there's no such split if it happens again. The middle of a rancorous long-running dispute is not really the best place to try and clarify - or to seek enforcement for - policy interpretations on which the community is split. --Aquillion (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • sufficient consensus to sanction or remove anyone here is not the goal, and it's a totally unreasonable interpretation of the OP. The middle of a rancorous long-running dispute is not really the best place to try and clarify - or to seek enforcement for - policy interpretations on which the community is split. We didn't know the community was split before this thread, and I'm not the one making it rancorous. There are ongoing content disputes on which the question I raised here directly bears. It's been going on for months (really years if you count the 2019 stuff). This is the correct place to raise this issue and seek input. I reject your assertion that I have done something wrong here or wasted anyone's time. I am not the only editor who has these concerns. Levivich 00:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

*Comment. FWIW I stopped reading the OP at "Haaretz, Israel's paper of record". Just as I would if it referred to a source as Palestine's paper of record, or America's paper of record, or Burkina Faso's paper of record. Way too partial and looks like an WP:AXE. Besides, we at Wikipedia are WP:NOTNEWS and could care less about newspapers as sources. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: FWIW keep reading. Haaretz, Israel's paper of record. Additionally, I think we can agree that newspapers can make good sources.1 2 3 4 5 6 Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not in this situation[29] and not the article based on the faked story[30] delivered to Haaretz by the globally banned actor. GizzyCatBella🍁 00:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue Poeticbent also has (had) a COI in this case (in line with my !vote), which rather diminishes the value of his essays. (He's not active, so he's not mentioned). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps now it is a good time to inform you, folks, that the original accusations of COI in regards to the Haaretz article arrived from? ...? ...? (wait for it....).... ????...... (wait..).... Yes, it was a sock puppet of Icewhiz. Back in October 2019 [31],[32] --> (Piotrus is in conflict of interest as his edits were thoroughly roasted by Haaretz). And .... here -->[33] - Conflict of interest editing undone The sock IP (used VPN connecting to Poland) was promptly blocked [34]. Another editor reverted the sock puppet with an edit summary not seeing the COI[35]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are you now attacking a discussion that took place in 2019? This is obvious well poisoning. Are we expected to believe that arguments made by a blocked sock are automatically invalid and shall never be discussed again? Give me a break. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Here's what we have:

User:AlexEng: Attacked, you say? A discussion of a potential COI is not an attack. - so... being falsely accused of ridiculous things is, according to Alex, definitely not being attacked.

Also User:AlexEng: Why are you now attacking a discussion that took place in 2019 - but, pointing out the relevant context - that all this mess can be traced to trolling ny a sock puppet of an indef banned user (and it's that banned user's wiki friends that are pushing this line here), well, oh my gosh! that's "ATTACKING THE DISCUSSION!!!!". Poor discussion. I hope it survives this attack. The discussion will probably need therapy afterwards though, since it was attacked. Poor, poor, discussion, I hope it recovers someday.

Anyway. How about we just close this whole stinking mess, since it ain't going nowhere? Volunteer Marek 03:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek One more comment accusing me of being a wiki friend/meat puppet/proxy of a banned user and I'm taking it to AE. My patience for being smeared by you is now exhausted. Levivich 05:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

How about you stop bringing up some ArbCom case from 12 years ago and insinuating that I’m on super sekrit email list? Volunteer Marek 06:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: you are straining the limits of my capacity to assume good faith with your feigned incredulity. The sheer magnitude of the mental gymnastics required to come to this conclusion after reading what each of us said is amazing. Do you really not understand the difference between attacking an argument (discussion) and attacking a person? It is my view that there is a rough consensus here that you have a COI with respect to the article under discussion. But, sure. Let's move on. Right after a closer handles it. Feel free to make a request for closure if you're quite finished making your point. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Alex, the fact that there is a difference between “attacking a discussion” (sic), whatever that means, and “attacking a person” is EXACTLY my point. You seem to be really upset about the former but are cool with the latter. I honestly don’t know what to make of your latest comment since it so blatantly contradicts your earlier posts.

And no, there’s no such consensus, gimme a freaking break. If anything it’s the opposite. Probably because the idea that there’s any COI here is not only absurd but also not actually based in the policy as written. As numerous commentators have pointed out over and over and over again.

I really wish you guys stopped trying to use denying the obvious as a rhetorical tactic. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"Attacking a discussion" seems pretty self-explanatory. In the referenced comment, GizzyCatBella appears to be attacking the credibility of the points being made in this discussion based on the idea that a sock puppet made some similar points during a discussion in 2019. Drawing attention to this fallacious reasoning is appropriate. Personal attacks are obviously inappropriate and against policy. Your insistence that you are somehow being "attacked" is therefore an unwarranted appeal to the WP:NPA policy. Again, I thought this was pretty clear. Do you actually not understand my reasoning here?

We must be living in different worlds if you don't see the affirmative consensus here. At this point, editors are getting exasperated below at the frankly bizarre attempts to pretend that there is not an obvious COI here. You and a couple of other people are just repeatedly hammering the same point that WP:COI does not support the existence of a COI in the face of clear facts and plain language in the policy. That's not a substantive rebuttal and should be weighed appropriately by the closer of the discussion. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"Attacking a discussion" is ridiculous language. What. Does. That. Even. Mean? Like with a halberd or something? Come on. "Attacking the credibility of the points being made" makes more sense... but also there's nothing wrong with that!!!! That's exactly what one is suppose to do. Answer ("attack" is just your hyperbolic, overblown, exaggerated, emotional, language) the points being made. For some reason you think there's ... something wrong with that? At the same time you're perfectly fine with editors leveling completely false accusations (I'm still waiting on some apologies) and making personal attacks? Sorry bud, you got it exactly ass-backwards.

And please stop it with the gaslighting. There's no consensus of the type you claim here.

"100% no".

"No. ...Why are we arguing about this story, who we know was fed to this journalist by a globally banned user?".

"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".

"Hum I am not enthusiastic about the notion that externally generated constraints be placed on editors, ".

"There is no COI in this particular case.".

"The allegation of "conflict of interest" in this case is indeed without merit.".

"No COI"

"Not a COI and really if you are saying it is you have a basic misunderstanding of what a conflict of interest actually is. "

" 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."

"Looking at all the arguments above I'll be as concise as I can. There is no COI. "

"I agree. All this sound and fury signifying nothing (more or less, as someone or other :) once said. No COI. Please find something more useful to do"

"Way too partial and looks like an WP:AXE. Besides, we at Wikipedia are WP:NOTNEWS and could care less about newspapers as sources."

And so on and so forth. What freakin' page are YOU reading? You're either commenting on some figment of your imagination or you're simply acting in bad faith and pretending that white is black and black is white. Stop it. Drop it. Enough. Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We're not stupid and we can all read words on the screen so pretending that the consensus here is opposite of what it actually is, is not going to work.

And while we're on the subject, feel free to substantiate your against-the-consensus comment alleging COI with a relevant quote from WP:COI policy itself (here it is: WP:COI) which would support your argument - something more than "I just dont like it".

Same goes for the couple of other "me too!" WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT comments (like the two below).

Volunteer Marek 00:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes COI Jesus fucking Christ, reading COIN today was a mistake, because this thread makes me want to shove a pickaxe through my skull. How much fucking clearer of a COI could there possibly be than an article which mentions someone by name to criticize them? Mlb96 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Issuch 'language' acceptable here?Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Swearing is generally not prohibited and should not be deleted only because it's a swearing word, but it is not endorsed, either, where not needed, and may be sometimes considered inappropriate or even inacceptable. So answering the question: it is in general tolerated, though not necessarily accepted. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  If it's so "fucking" clear, then please quote the relevant part of WP:COI that you think editors are violating. Otherwise this is just a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT useless comment. Volunteer Marek 00:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends...and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia...While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest (similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if they are married to the defendant.) Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI...

  Levivich 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

" editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends...and other relationships" Nobody here has "contributed" anything about themselves, their family, their friends (except Icewhiz who used Wikipedia to post death threats to editors' families .... but you already know that) or "other relationships" to Wikipedia. Stop trying pretending otherwise. You know damn well this is not true. Stop trying to fake it. This is beyond tiresome and it's so bad faithed that if there was a WP:List of Wikipedia's greatest moments of bad faith it'd be entry #1. Volunteer Marek 02:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you @Levivich. Now kindly show one diff of VM --> editing about himself, his family or friends. GizzyCatBella🍁 00:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know if you think sea lioning is persuasive or what, but you keep doing it. The diffs are in the OP. Every time he removed Haaretz, he was editing about himself, because the Haaretz piece is about him (in part) (and I'm not sure if Piotrus counts as "friend", but they've been editing together for 12+ years, and both were parties to EEML). Don't let me know if you have any other questions. Levivich 01:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't "sea lioning". There is no "diffs in the OP". This is simply asking you to back up your false accusations. Stop trying to fake it. Stop making personal attacks against other editors by calling them "trolls" just because they dare to stand up to your constant bullying and weaseling. Removing a source, which is NOT being used to source anything about an editor is NOT 'editing about himself' except as a figment of your imagination. Except as part of your little WP:HARASSMENT crusade that you've been on ever since Icewhiz, whom you supported tenaciously during the ArbCom case and afterwards, got banned (you want diffs? I got dozens of diffs, except last time I tried to post them you complained that posting diffs to back this up was itself "bad") I asked you [36] to stop bringing up irrelevant ArbCom case from 12 years ago, which you've been doing over and over again as a sad attempt to poison the discussions, and... you just couldn't help yourself, could you? If you think that THAT "context" is somehow relevant, then so is your constant fucking support for Icewhiz and your constant enabling of his socks. If you don't want to hear that, then stop doing his dirty work and stop bringing up this ridiculous ""EEML" boogey man. Volunteer Marek 02:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So what? I'd be happy to hear from Slatersteven (if his assessment is the same two years later) but otherwise this post brings no relevant information to the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes COI. Clearly. Per, and with the same exasperation as expressed by, Mlb96. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Hundreds of RNA motif pages

• Drum RNA motif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• over 200 other pages (all created by user)
• Zashaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum RNA motif it was noticed that there are many similar articles created by the same user. The user provides enough information on their user page to confirm that they are part of the group that published the article that is the sole reference. The user's contributions to this (and the other pages I'm about to mention) were long enough ago that it is not an issue of continued user behavior, but rather a big cleanup problem.

Turns out there are over 200 pages with a title that includes RNA motif that were created by this user and rely solely on several research papers published by this group. All the pages that rely on a single paper present the issue in WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that there isn't confirmation that the finding is confirmed or significant, so all the pages at the least need review to see whether they should be deleted, and perhaps should all be presumptively deleted.

However, none of the participants in the discussion up to now (including myself) have enough expertise in the field to ask for all the pages to be deleted without review. Someone who is conversant in the field may be able to confirm my suspicion that these 200+ pages represent findings from an individual lab and are either not significant or WP:TOOSOON without confirmatory work by other investigators.

In short, I'm looking for help in sorting this all out.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 04:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this discussion on my talk page, rsjaffe. As I understand it, you have two related concerns. First, these RNA motifs appear to be based only on primary literature, and not secondary literature. Secondly, they indeed derive from my own research, and so there appears to be a conflict of interest in my writing Wikipedia articles on them.

What is perhaps not made sufficiently clear in these articles is that the relevant RNAs were included in the Rfam Database. Rfam (see the citations in the Wikipedia article) is a database of different types of RNAs with a conserved structure, and its content undergoes significant curation by expert bioinformaticians, both in deciding which RNAs merit inclusion and what data about those RNAs to provide. It also provides data necessary for further scientific analysis of the RNAs.

With regard to the apparent lack of secondary source: The Rfam Database seems to me to qualify as a secondary source, since it is essentially a hand-curated encyclopedia of structured RNAs that meet Rfam's criteria (as I understand it, essentially that there is evidence of biologically relevant structure and function and that the data are meaningful). Therefore, I believe these Wikipedia pages are supported by a secondary source. You can confirm their inclusion in Rfam for yourself by looking for Rfam's information box in the relevant pages, introduced with the {{Infobox rfam ...}} tag in the markup. All data in this info box comes from the Rfam database. Beside the term "Rfam" is the accession for the given RNA and a link to its entry in Rfam. For example, on the Drum RNA motif page, you can click on the accession RF02958 (lower, right part of the page). Such links should be provided for all RNA articles I have added to Wikipedia.

With regard to the apparent conflict of interest: The Rfam Database is maintained by a group at the European Bioinformatics Institute and this group was previously located at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. I have never had any affliation with either of these institutions, nor do I have any power to make Rfam incorporate specific RNAs into their database. Indeed some of the RNAs I have published were not included in the Rfam Database, and these RNAs do not have corresponding Wikipedia articles. Thus, I did not really decide to put these RNAs into Wikipedia, rather the Rfam group did. I just did the work to create the Wikipedia article in many cases.

In terms of resolving this issue, perhaps it would be helpful to have an "External links" section in the affected articles that explicitly links to Rfam, although I'm not sure how to practically do this with hundreds of articles.

I have alerted the Rfam team to this page, in case they want to weigh in. I will also link to my text here from the Articles for Deletion entry for the Drum RNA motif page, since I see that the same issues are being discussed there.

Zashaw (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are methods to edit large numbers of articles to emplace similar edits, so that’s not an impossible task if that would resolve the issue with lack of secondary references. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment As the current head of Rfam, I would like to voice my support for keeping the articles authored by Zasha Weinberg (Zashaw). These articles accompany the entries in the Rfam database of RNA families that capture the data reported in the scientific literature and create computational models to enable identification of these RNAs in any sequence. Rfam staff include trained bioinformaticians and RNA biologists who carefully review all entries and provide additional verification that these RNAs are important (Rfam is not affiliated with Zasha Weinberg or his institution). For example, a Wikipedia article about the Drum RNA is part of the Rfam entry RF02958 and includes an infobox showing metadata from Rfam. Many RNAs discovered by Zasha Weinberg have been later shown to serve important functions, so it is important to have Wikipedia entries that describe what these RNAs are. Having scientists like Zasha Weinberg provide starting points for Wikipedia entries about different RNAs is valuable because these pages are then edited and expanded by the community. In fact, Rfam pioneered the integration with Wikipedia over a decade ago (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3013711/), and we found that connecting the scientists and the community through Wikipedia has been very successful. Antonipetrov (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a significant COI issue here. Yes, Zashaw could mention Rfam on their userpage to be clearer that there's a connection to it, but the actual work they're doing isn't particularly affected by their professional connection to the topic (and the self-cite is probably reasonable in this instance given the topic. The discussion of notability of the articles is a separate (and much broader) issue, so I'll add more at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Drum_RNA_motif which I think is the main location for that discussion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

As someone involved in the beginning of rfam/pfam, I would also like to voice my strong support for keeping these articles! Magnus Manske (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Help wanted We're continuing to discuss whether Drum RNA motif should be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum RNA motif, and I suspect the outcome of the discussion there should inform what happens here next. I came to the COI notice board for help, as I realized that we needed a lot more scrutiny of this issue, as it affects hundreds of pages, and this noticeboard seemed to be the most relevant (though not a perfect fit to the issue at hand). I invite administrators and other knowledgeable people to review the deletion discussion and weigh in if appropriate. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Magnus Manske: Any chance you could take a look at this, having been involved in the early bioinformatics integrations? It's pretty clear that these articles don't meet our current notability standards and to me, the solution could be that there is an Rfam wiki where reseachers such as Zashaw can write about them, and then if they then become notable, we can copy from that wiki to here in the future. If a Wikipedia article existed, then that would take priority over the Rfam wiki i.e. there would only ever be one version of an article. Is this something that might be feasible for you Antonipetrov? I admittedly have no experience in WP:TRANSWIKI but I am sure someone does. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I am afraid that I do not agree with the point that these articles do not meet the notability standards. These entries describe RNA genes that are found in many different organisms, including human pathogens. Even if we do not yet know all of their functions, these RNA have evolved over a long time and do play important roles that will eventually be revealed. The Rfam team works on a wide range of RNAs, including viral RNAs and RNA motifs found in Coronaviruses. Several years ago one could have argued that those entries and the corresponding Wiki articles were not important enough, which would have been misguided as recently these RNAs turned out to be rather notable. Many of the pages that are being discussed here have been improved over the years by Wikipedians who are not necessarily scientists but who wanted to contribute to a valuable resource. Relegating this important information to a separate wiki would create a barrier between the public and the scientific endeavour. Antonipetrov (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Antonipetrov: They unequivocally do not meet the general notability guideline at present if they are only discussed in a single publication and that is the only yardstick of notability relevant here. From a random selection of pages created by Zashaw, I can't see anything to support "Many of the pages that are being discussed here have been improved over the years by Wikipedians": [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Smartse: The first example that immediately comes to mind is Fluoride riboswitch. The page was started as crcB RNA motif and many years later this RNA was shown to act as fluoride riboswitch. I can look up other examples like this if it helps. I do appreciate the need to weed out irrelevant articles that do not serve any purpose except to promote the author(s). Zashaw's case could not be further from this - if anything, it is a great example of collaboration and open science. Rfam database serves as a second publication supporting these pages because we publish bi-annual updates in the Nucleic Acids Research (since 2002!) and we could have easily included a table listing all of these RNAs and new information discovered about them by our team at Rfam. We did not do it because it would be redundant with Rfam itself and it never occurred to us that the notability of this work would be questioned but we could have satisfied the formal criteria with ease. Antonipetrov (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Antonipetrov: Thanks for the example. When it was created that article had only a single journal article reference like most of the articles under discussion and assuming that was all that existed, did not meet GNG. When this and the corresponding article in Science was published, it became notable. Now there are hundreds of articles mentioning it. Wikipedia isn't into cataloging things which might become notable at some point in the future - if it did then every person and business would merit an article as they might one day become Bill Gates / Google etc. Personally I don't see that COI is much of an issue here, as you are all clearly trying to benefit the project rather than yourselves, but that doesn't change the fact that this content doesn't belong here. SmartSE (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Smartse: I am afraid that I do not agree with the analogies between RNA genes and people, movies, or other items that may or may not become notable. The genes - be it RNA or protein - exist in the living beings around us. They are notable regardless of the number of scientific papers about them. Importantly, we are not talking about every single gene - we are talking about a high-quality, manually curated subset of RNA genes that have been discovered by Zashaw and then manually reviewed by me (Antonipetrov), my team, or our predecessors at Rfam, who are all trained biologists. Our review is not superficial. We perform a lot of quality control steps and analyses, and in some cases we change the data submitted to us by Zashaw. As a result we produce entries in the Rfam database that are linked to the corresponding Wikipedia entries and are represented by the Rfam infoboxes. I am not sure I understand why all this work does not qualify as a secondary source, and I continue to express my support for keeping these Wikipedia entries. Antonipetrov (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is notable basic biology. There seems to be some misplaced concern that there are too many articles, being added indiscriminately. I think the situation is, rather, the very rapid progress in molecular biology that makes identifying significant structures much more feasible. Most of them are being discussed further, and if we start having discussions over each of them, by the time the discussions and the likely appeals and subsidiarty dscussions are finished, there will be sources. Some areas in science move faster than AfD and other WP processes . DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Request to close this issue Discussion concluded on nomination for deletion as No consensus with recommendation to open RfC to resolve the issue.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No need for an RfC. I do not see any issue whatsoever. Actually, this is excellent work by a number of contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sri Balaji Video

• Sri Balaji Video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Niranjanpansari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has created this article, only other edits are adding links to it in other articles. They have removed a COI template multiple times. Obvious COI according to the infobox. MB 15:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Prodded, trimmed unsourced cruft, now I'm going to go removed the other additions the user made that failed WP:V. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I've cleaned most of it up. I'm sure there are a lot more unsourced mentions of Sri Balaji Videos on-wiki, as I saw it added, unsourced, fairly often. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The COI editor has removed the prod tag, and reinserted the promotional material. I've brought the article to AfD, and reported the user as a promotion only account at AIV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Very suspicious editor with IP address 96.231.39.34 is editing the AdvisorShares page

• AdvisorShares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fund.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 96.231.39.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.66.193.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just looking at the timing and contents of edits, as well as using Wikipedia's geolocate link on their IP addresses, it appears that blocked user with IP address 173.66.193.112 and user 96.231.39.34 are the same person. In addition, using geolocate shows that they are using computers near AdvisorShare's office. All of their edits are deletions of publicly available material involving AdvisorShares and additions of unsourced information that almost surely would only be known to a company insider. It seems obvious that they are trying to change the AdvisorShares page to a promotional page. 96.231.39.34's first edit was on October 4, 2021, where they deleted information about AdvisorShares, whose source was the US governmental regulator the SEC, from the Fund.com page without explanation. 96.231.39.34 tried to replace a link about a court case regarding the ownership of the company with the company's own Twitter page. This user also obviously doesn't know the rules around editing Wikipedia. They just make deletions without explanations or add unsourced comments. On December 2, 2021 when one IP address was blocked (173.66.193.112) another one (96.231.39.34) tried to make edits on the same day. In their latest edits from December 2, 2021 they basically just complain that everything written in these publicly available articles and documents from the SEC and US courts are lies and that Wikipedia is rigged. They never cite publicly available information to support the cases they want to make. If you read their comments and explanations, they're not even trying to hide that they have a conflict of interest, in part because they use information that only an AdvisorShares' insider would know. After the name of Charles Robertson under Key People, 173.66.193.112 added "(deceased from reading this slander about AdvisorSahres)". After a quote that Charles Biderman gave to a journalist, 173.66.193.112 adds "the facts are they were notified of the reasons, and they chose not to make them public)". Libertyandjustice (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've semiprotected AdvisorShares and Fund.com for two months each. No objection if another admin wants to block one or more of the above IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Andersonville Theological Seminary

• Andersonville Theological Seminary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mr._North_Florida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Mr._North_Florida Has been editing this article for years. His edits always remove critical information. He just removed something that only a staff member would know about and that is the school losing/canceling its ABHE membership. I could find no mention anywhere in online sources and then its was removed from the Association of Biblical Higer Education membership directory. I have attempted to speak to the user but he has not responded to me. Super (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

StrongDM

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

The author had several COI warnings, but still moved the page to mainspace without AfC. I nominated the article for the deletion as it fails WP:NCORP. Just realized that prabably editors shouldn't spend too much time voting at the deletion discussion, but I will leave that for the community to decide. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I see the user declared themselves to be a paid contributor back on 22 October. --SVTCobra 15:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Wcsneel and Gleneagles Hospitals

• Gleneagles Hospital Kuala Lumpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gleneagles Hospital Penang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gleneagles Medical Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Gleneagles Hospital Medini Johor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wcsneel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wcsneel is a relatively new account that began editing at the beginning of September 2021. The first edit made was to create Draft:Hospital Shah Alam and almost the entire focus of the account's edits have been to create or add content about Malaysian hospitals, particularly those associated with Gleneagles Hospitals. I came across this question about a logo file at WP:MCQ and noticed there was probably at least an WP:APPARENTCOI given the promotional nature of the edits after looking at the editor's contributions. The editor has made a number of page moves (which might be OK), but it appears that much of the content they've been added being taken verbatim from official websites or other official promotional materials. Of course, that could just be stuff completely unrelated to WP:COI or WP:PAID, but editor's post at MCQ seems to imply that they've been in contact with one or more of these hospitals and are writing for them in some capacity. Around the time was created, a {{welcome-coi}} was added to their user talk page by an administrator, but it never received a response. I posted a bit of a more detailed message at User talk:Wcsneel#Conflict of interest editing and I did receive a response posted by an IP address on my user talk page which said they had no close relationship with the said company. For reference, I did query about this by email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org and the response I received suggested that I bring this matter up here at COIN to see what others think; so, that's what I doing now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding Draft:Gleneagles Hospital Medini Johor which I just declined because it read like an advertisement and advised them they need to address these concerns. S0091 (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is Wcsneel. I totally understand your concern. I'm here to clarify that I have no relation with these hospitals. I'm just trying to contribute some articles of the hospitals in Malaysia, because I find the info of these hospitals in Wikipedia is very limited, and a lot of Malaysians are also sourcing from Wikipedia. Please forgive my un-intention actions.

Wcsneel (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Wcsneel: thank you for responding. While I understand your desire, I think you have a common misconception about the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not exist to tell the world about things. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should simply summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen to say about a subject in a neutral way. If no such sources exist, then the content does not belong here. Your editing is promotional because you are trying to advocate for something, which is the wrong way to go about it. Continuing to edit this way will only lead to you getting in trouble here so I suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's core content policies. I will leave some additional on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Tips For Getting Your Business On Wikipedia

Another one of these, for the interested. This one from Forbes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ha, wow that one's pretty terrible. I wonder if the readers will notice that neither the author nor his company are on Wikipedia. Levivich 16:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, the author may very well be on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I like how he basically writes a guide to UPE without mentioning that it is not actually welcome or even permitted. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

His point 7. is a favorite of mine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It'd make for hilarious parody, I wish I thought of it, I would have written this for the Signpost. Levivich 17:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

He'd like us to write about him and his company though: [42] Vexations (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Just checked with an eye for WP:UNDUE, and the only links to the two pages he wants to be created are from "Requested Articles", and neither he nor his company are mentioned in any of the articles featured on the list, nor do they seem to appear anywhere else in Wikipedia main space. Seems he fails #3 of his own guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Some clients of his company ("stoqd"; client list helpfully included on their website) are on Wikipedia - and with a history of UPE. I've reached out to the publisher of the blog post, Forbes Councils, on Twitter to let them know the post is unethical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked over a few myself. Some of them, like Dairy Queen or Coldwell Banker are clearly notable and the articles were begun before UPE was such a big problem, but may have suffered from spammers in the interim. On the whole the guide is actually pretty poorly written and scattershot, I'm not exactly stoked by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

According to a section on its talk page, Dairy Queen used to have content describing its homophobic approach to advertising, That content is no longer present. Has the article been whitewashed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I think you forgot a Talk: prefix in that talk page link? -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I found the diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

To be fair thats seems like a reasonable removal if there was no secondary coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Louis B. Rosenberg & Zoe Rosenberg & Unanimous A.I.

• Unanimous_A.I. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Louis B. Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zoe Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Virtual fixture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by SVTCobra 02:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC))
• Collective intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Swarm intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Outland_Pix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Outland_Pictures (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Augmented Vitality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AR Trends (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.87.70.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 173.73.139.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 136.179.21.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 81.92.245.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• UnanimousImage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already blocked (added by SVTCobra 07:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC))
• GardenM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (added by SVTCobra 07:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC))

First of all, very new to editing, I'm unsure about correct procedure. I have been improving the Metaverse article, and the most recent edit was from an unregistered user adding a reference to a newly published article in VentureBeat. I was suspicious about the addition, and checked the anonymous user's contributions. Their only other contribution was to the Wikipedia page of the article's author which set off alarm bells. The author's Wikipedia page reads like pure sales copy, as does the Wikipedia page of Louis B. Rosenberg's company, Unanimous A.I. On inspection, there is a pattern of puffery and inserting editorialized sources to articles authored by Louis B. Rosenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs)

I added virtual fixture to the list. Seems related. --SVTCobra 02:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added (and will notify) users Augmented Vitality and AR Trends (in this context, "AR" likely stands for augmented reality). Based on topic-related username and overlapping edits, these both also seem related. Or maybe a separate group? I dunno.

The two Outlands accounts could be blocked as promotional usernames which implied shared use (per WP:ISU etc.). Since neither of them has been active recently, this isn't pressing, but it does further suggest something fishy has been going on. Grayfell (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• @BrigadierG: Did you see the notice at the top of this page telling you that you are required to notify all users of any discussion which involves them? I have posted the required notices for you. Please be sure and notify any additional editors if they are added. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Grayfell: my apologies. I will ensure I do that in future. Forgive my ineptitude, and thank you to whoever fixed my horribly broken formatting. BrigadierG (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I added User:GardenM (commons) and User:UnanimousImage (commons). These two accounts are largely responsible for uploading images to Commons and adding them to the aforementioned articles. --SVTCobra 09:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've nominated the Zoe Rosenberg page for deletion here BrigadierG (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI, on Commons, Outland Pix repeatedly uploaded a photo I took of Zoe, falsely claiming as their own; see their talk page for long list of those and other copyvios. Funcrunch (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

See also this exchange on Commons for further context. Funcrunch (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• These two accounts were both created within a couple hourse of each other:

• Sechnotot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jellostand22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One edited Louis B. Rosenberg while the other edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis B. Rosenberg. The end result of both edits, regardless of intention, seems to be to preserve the article by trimming the most superficially and obviously objectionable content. While this would be a good starting point, I don't think it's enough, and much of the content still in the article is still poorly sourced and overly promotional. Having two brand new accounts created just to tackle this issue is yet another sign of something weird going on. Perhaps they will comment about it here. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone has seemingly put a lot of effort into seeding this guy into Wikipedia, and someone seemingly noticed very quickly once he was nominated for deletion. This level of activism is very concerning. BrigadierG (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Sechnotot, User:Jellostand22, and User:Nipomoham have been confirmed to be sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sechnotot/Archive. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Christopher Bauman

• Draft:Christopher Bauman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft is entirely the work of unregistered editors, who are removing the AFC comments and resubmitting it tendentiously. Do we have a clue whether there is a sockmaster? I have requested semi-protection. Is there anything else that can be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The photo on that page is a copyright violation. If you check out the uploader's Flickr account you'll see it's all stock photos and screenshots that he claims are his own work and has republished as CC or PD. I don't know how to report this at Commons. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That uploader does have a troubling upload history, but this particular image does not appear to have come from Flickr. --SVTCobra 12:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Basis Global Technologies

• Draft:Basis Global Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Basis Global Technologies(2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Curve516 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Paid editor created an article about company in article space in October 2021. Editor was then told by Giraffer that paid editors are required to disclose, and are strongly advised not to edit directly or create directly in article space. Editor then correctly made a disclosure on their user page. Article was then moved into draft space by User:MrsSnoozyTurtle. Editor then moved Centro, Inc. to Basis Global Technologies, citing name change, and it was then moved again by User:MrsSnoozyTurtle to draft space. User apparently needs to be cautioned again against paid editing in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

JKLlamera

• Draft:JK Llamera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JKLlamera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The mentioned user created a draft page about himself, stating his basic information about himself. As per COI rules, no one shall create a page about himself or herself. NewManila2000 (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of vanity articles in drafts every day. But can I ask why you submitted this one for review? --SVTCobra 17:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I nominated the draft for deletion, but there appears to be something more problematic going on with this user. --SVTCobra 18:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I submitted the draft for review and at the same time, that the page be deleted too. NewManila2000 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agustín Ostachuk

• Aostachuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alexander Bogdanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user Aostachuk has been engaging in slow edit warring to add the journal article What is It Like to be a Crab? A Complex Network Analysis of Eucaridan Evolution written by Agustín Ostachuk, and published in the Journal Evolutionary Biology in 2019 to the Crab article. Aostachuk has denied that there is a conflict of interest, despite the clear similarity of their username with the author of the journal article. Aostachuk has also previously been warned on their talkpage for copying text directly from the article. I am not in a position to assess the paper on its merits, but if the paper was influential in the field I wouldn't have a problem with citing it, but it appears to have had little impact so far. Aostachuk also cited another article by Agustín Ostachuk on the article Alexander Bogdanov. 1 Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This goes much deeper than I initally thought, Aostachuk has an extensive habit of citing their own research articles (and little else) extending all the way back to the beginning of their editing in 2013 diff. A quick perusal of their edits shows that in almost all cases where they are adding references, they are citing papers they are an author of. This is clearly an abuse of WP:SELFCITE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cougroyalty: who has also been tangentially involved with this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I have also reverted some of Aostachuk's Crab edits, and I warned them about copying work on their talk page. (I also noticed they just received a barnstar on their talk page from a user with no other contributions, which seems odd.) Cougroyalty (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Response to Hemiauchenia

Wikipedia policy regarding "Citing yourself":

Citing yourself

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason , but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.

The paper being cited (Ostachuk, 2019) in the Crab page is relevant: it has been published in the journal Evolutionary Biology, it has been cited 4 times so far, and it has been downloaded 418 times from the publisher page [43]. Aostachuk (talk)

Aostachuk has undone my attempts to properly format this response for some reason. For anyone uninvolved feel free to do so. Of those "4 citations", one is a preprint on Biorxiv, and one is a paper that you wrote yourself. I do not see how the paper has had enough substantial impact on the field to warrant inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia has been extremely violent with his/her commentaries from the beginning. He/she (who knows who he/she is?) has been trying to accuse me from unethical behavior ("Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own work"), when it is clear according to Wikipedia policy on "Citing yourself" that this not a crime or violation of the terms of use . I advice Hemiauchenia to be more respectful and polite, as I have been, and not to accuse me of false denunciations. In my edits, I have not only cited my own work but others too (5 different citations in the article "Crab"). I will not further discuss the quality of my work with an unknown person with unknown academic formation. Aostachuk

Wikipedia welcomes people who contribute anonymously, and there's a variety of good reasons people do so (including safety). Your edits are a conflict of interest problem and you should (a) clearly state on your userpage that you are the academic Agustín Ostachuk (if you want to continue editing in areas where this is relevant); and (b) not add publications written by yourself directly, but propose on the talk page and such changes you would want to make, ideally using {{Edit request}}. It does not matter if you are trying to be neutral by including references from others: the point of a conflict of interest is that it fundamentally compromises a person's ability to assess whether their edits are neutral, and as such a neutral third party is needed. — Bilorv (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Aostachuk, you are both adding citations to yourself to the majority of articles you are editing, as well as edit warring to keep citations to yourself in over the objections of other editors. That is not the 'conforms to the content policies' and 'is not excessive' envisioned by the guidelines here. You should stop adding citations to yourself to articles. When you have published something that you believe can improve an article, you should raise that on the article's associated talk page for implementation by editors who are not so close to the issue. - MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that you do not want to accept Wikipedia's own policies: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP: SELFPUB, and is not excessive". It seems to me that there is not much more to add, just accept the reality of the facts and evidence. If citing yourself were a conflict of interest or a crime, you would not be allowed to cite yourself in scientific publications. If this is allowed in true academic publications, it does not make sense that it is not allowed in a general information web page, the content of which is not considered academic or scientific literature.

It is clear that all my edits are in my name, since my username is my name, so it is quite redundant to clarify that the edits were made in my name. I have nothing to hide and I registered on Wikipedia with my name. This gives transparency and clarity to the system, and automatically eliminates any type of conflict of interest (since everything is in view and registered). The use of pseudonyms only contributes to confusion, turbidity, opacity and impunity, and does not make it possible to reveal the conflicts of interest and the hidden interests that these people are defending. I don't think security has anything to do with this. This is not Wikileaks. Aostachuk

This kind of motivated reasoning is exactly why we discourage editing with a conflict of interest. You have taken that sentence, which contains very important caveats and limitations, and are using it to justify adding citations to yourself whereever you like and edit warring to keep those citations in. That is not the intended reading of that sentence. You're a scientist, and you're used to scientific publications, where citing yourself is so encouraged it is almost a requirement. But Wikipedia is not scientific publishing. This is a different community, with its own norms and standards. If you want to contribute here successfully, you will have to make some effort to learn and abide by the local practicies. I think you would benefit greatly by reading Wikipedia:Expert editors, which was written with this sort of situation in mind. - MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It is very difficult to maintain a dialogue on equal terms with an unknown person that I cannot identify, and who therefore cannot take charge of his own words.

As for me, I am in a clear conscience that I have acted in good faith, transparently and honestly, that I have not engaged in any unethical, opaque and shady behavior (like someone who hides under a false name), and to be supported by Wikipedia's usage policies (which have already been sufficiently cited). Aostachuk

Communicating with other editors is an integral part of contributing to Wikipedia and is required for our consensus-based decision making processes. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors use pseudonyms. If you cannot find a way to communicate with people using pseudonyms, editing on Wikipedia may not be for you. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, if you continue to edit war as you have been, it is likely that your account will be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Aostachuk, your knowledge of convergent evolution is certainly something that we need more of on WP. Some of the citations you added were appropriate and needed and so I reinstated those a few days ago. However your citations of yourself I did not and I must agree you should discuss before doing so. I must also agree that your own works would need more/better citations before that would be warranted. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Aostachuk, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but a norm-driven community. If a majority of people think your actions are disruptive then you are expected to change your actions. All of us have, at points, disagreed with what a majority of people thought about our actions and still changed our behaviour anyway—such is the compromise you have to make as an adult working within a community.
  Making lawyer-like arguments according to the letter of the rules is not helpful because the rules are written and shaped by the views of the community, not the converse, and they are ignored whenever it is helpful to do so. The rules give an idea of what the community finds disruptive, but do not replace direct community feedback. The community feedback here is: your actions are disruptive. If you do not wish to listen to constructive criticism and change your behaviour then you cannot work under the processes of Wikipedia, which would be a great shame as we are in dire need of subject experts. P.S. a signature should have four tildes (~~~~), not three. — Bilorv (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Note that User:Aostachuk has been blocked for one week for sockpuppetry involving the barnstar award awarded to him/herself by a puppet, noticed by User:Cougroyalty. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

WE Charity again

WE Charity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More WE Charity UPE is almost certainly taking place. See The Signpost for a good summary of our past issues here.

This IP edit summarises a CBC source that evidences a unusual co-ordinated campaign to suppress investigative journalism into the group... but summarises it in a way completely flattering of WE Charity, with a few very misleading claims. My new summary was reverted in under half an hour by an IP geolocating to the same area in Canada, and they gave me a template warning. There's a term for someone who knows Wikipedia well enough to have seen template warnings (but who forgets a signature) editing in an area where we've detected large amounts of UPE, trying to whitewash a scandal that portrays WE Charity unfavorably. It's "duck".

The only surprise here is how stupid WE Charity think Wikipedia are. More eyes are needed, permanently, on all WE Charity-related pages. — Bilorv (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:SEMI could keep the IP editors at bay and force any autoconfirmed, registered paid/COI accounts into the spotlight. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The last two IPs, 98.97.158.7 and 50.68.19.161 are part of the same (expensive) residential proxy network. Obviously an experienced UPE operation. MarioGom (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nicole Simone

• Nicole Simone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JustACodeMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 12vanillabean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The articles creator states his conflict of interest directly on his Wikipedia profile. His account was created specifically to create this article even. Nicole Simone has worked extensively on personal projects with someone named Greg (last name I will keep private of course). It seems obvious that this is the same person and as someone employed by Nicole this represents an even further conflict of interest.

"JustACodeMonkey, known to his friends as Greg, joined WikiPedia to help his friend Nicole Simone (aka Late July)." NoSpamming (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that JustACodeMonkey has a COI, per an old diff of his userpage that clearly states as such, there appears to be an off-wiki dispute at the heart of this over animal cruelty allegations regarding a charity that Nicole runs. The self-published blog that was being used to source these allegations (which NoSpamming presumably knows about, see https://redemptionflaws.wordpress.com/2021/12/03/rp-founder-nicole-simones-wikipedia-article-now-with-references-to-redemption-paws-controversies/) were rightly removed per WP:BLPSPS. I have no opinion on her notability, but the AfD nomination you have created is badly formatted and needs to be fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Added another suspicious SPA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

An IP with no other edits has responded on their Talk page [44] (sorry mobilediff) Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Society for the Study of Social Problems

• Society for the Study of Social Problems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tomhoodster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is a SPA and has not acknowledged COI as requested at their TP. I recently removed most of the "annual meeting" section of the article as promotional and it has been restored as it was with completely inappropriate language. MB 00:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Even ignoring the obvious promotional wording, the article seems to cite no independent sources whatsoever, and thus fails to demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The COI is obvious; I will leave it to other editors to take the five seconds it will require to find the clear evidence of a connection between this editor's name and the organization. The lack of any communication for over 3.5 years makes it clear that this editor needs to be blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not finding any independent coverage of this organization... there might be some on JSTOR but I don't have access on there. Anyone else? If there's nothing there then the article might be suitable for AfD. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Study of Social Problems. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• I can get JSTOR (and so can you, fellow Wikipedia users, through the Wikipedia Library[45]) and it seems to me fairly clear there is sufficient sourcing for an article, though it will have to be completely re-written from the COI puff piece that landed. I've made a start ... Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Swiss Life Asset Managers

Article

• Swiss Life Asset Managers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users

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

Request for a closer look at the article given the self-declared COI. Thanks.-KH-1 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

India League

• India League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JumpingJimmySingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JumpingJimmySingh denies having a conflict of interest with the India League/1928 Institute (User talk:JumpingJimmySingh#Managing a conflict of interest) but seems to be in close communication with the latter's webmaster. At User talk:JumpingJimmySingh#India League, they ask "How do I ensure that page is SEO?" Within the space of an evening's discussion at Talk:India_League#Relationship_between_India_League_and_1928_Institute, text on the Institute's site has been changed from "The 1928 Institute was established in 2020 as a think-tank to continue the work of the original India League (est. 1928)" to "The 1928 Institute was established in 2020 as a think-tank and is the continuation of the original India League (est. 1928)", at the same time as the editor concerned posted this. Previous, when text that JumpingJimmySingh added to Wikipedia was identified as a copyvio of the 1928 Institute website, it very quickly disappeared from the site after JumpingJimmySingh had been notified - see this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

JumpingJimmySingh also created Draft:Nikita Ved (about a co-founder of the 1928 Institute), which contained unsourced personal information about the subject - for which I can't find a published source. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India_League#Relationship_between_India_League_and_1928_Institute - as discussed on this chat, I said that I would message all parties involved. I messaged the 1928 Institute and they responded to me in an hour to clear up a matter on the 'original India League'. I am an observer of British Indians, hence I volunteer my time in this space and am not part of the India League/1928 Institute. JumpingJimmySingh (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify how you knew the personal details about the 1928 Institute's co-founder that you included in the article you tried to publish about her? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a straight up coi. There is no other explanation for it. scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, like with most organisations, they have a 'contact us' page or are available on Instagram, hence they responded to my query. Re Dr Nikita Ved, her details are online and on her Instagram - the information is not very hard to find. I'm now starting to feel bullied for making edits. All of my work edits are on the India League and are based on facts from credible and unbiased sources, i.e. the BBC or the University of Oxford. JumpingJimmySingh (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Which of those sources did the information you included in the article about how she broke her nose come from? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Savage Minds (magazine)

• Draft:Savage Minds (magazine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Julian Vigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When reviewing and declining the draft at AfC on the basis of notability per WP:NWEB, I noticed that the creator of the draft has a user name that matches the name of the founder and editor of the web based magazine, from which I have inferred they have a conflict of interest and financial stake in the topic. I left a message on the editor's talk page asking them to declare their connection. The editor has replied with claims of harassment, libel and censorship. Please could an uninvolved editor review the draft and the comments that its creator has left for me on their talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It's barely even a "magazine", it is a substack blog. COI creation of articles is allowed via AfC, but I think this one will just die and get deleted naturally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Substack is a publishing platform. Savage Minds is not a blog. We have an editorial process for everything and this is a magazine which has been quite successful since its launch. The previous Wikipedia editor, as you can see from his comments, has made reckless statements and has made statements not at all based on reality. I can only imagine he is not informed with the publishing world. Savage Minds is a magazine and has many award-winning journalists who contribute to it. I don't know where this editor gets his information, but Substack is a company that merely provides server space—there are many other magazines and news outlets based on Substack. The comments by this editor are extremely uninformed and rude. Please review my complaints of the comments I have received from the previous Wikipedia editor. I have also provided a long list of blogs on Wikipedia that are actually blogs and that are substandard for consideration as a media source. Most of the blogs on Wikipedia are commercial enterprises. Savage Minds is not. Julian Vigo (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether blogs and magazines are commercial or not, Julian Vigo, but rather whether they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If there aren't independent sources written about the magazine that an article can be based on, then the subject doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. It might be that there are articles about blogs that predate the tightening of the new article review process, but if that's the case they should be nominated for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Savage Minds is the former name of Anthrodendum, an actually prominent (and probably wiki-notable) anthropology blog. This looks like a fringe-y, politically-motivated rip off. – Joe (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a legitimate publication with two own writers. I am an anthropologist. Keep the ad him to yourself. I would like an editor who is t insulting and who had a modicum of knowledge about the publishing world. These comments are deranged and offensive. We have journalists, writers and scholars on board. These comments are a sad representation of Wikipedia. I would appreciate and editor who is respectful. The public submits to you. Editors need to play by the same rules. I have submitted documentation of our magazine being covered by three major media sources. Criteria met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Vigo (talk • contribs) 12:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you link to those three sources here so that I can assess them, Julian Vigo? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Before this gets derailed further, may I point out that the rather aggravated response on Julian Vigo's part appears to stem in part from differences in understanding of what constitutes conflict of interest and paid editing? While Julian Vigo is the editor of Savage Minds, she's saying that her work there is of a non-commercial nature, and appears to have taken insult at the suggestion that WP:PAID compliance is required (as well as the rather harsh wording of the template message regarding forgetting to sign in, which, regardless of other issues, does indeed seem unnecessarily WP:BITEy). What are the applicable policies/guidelines for editors who have a non-financial conflict of interest stemming from their relationship to an organisation anyway?

To Julian Vigo, please understand that there are two separate issues in question: Firstly, if you have a close connection, even if it's not financial, to the subject of a (potential) Wikipedia article, please disclose this; see WP:DISCLOSE for guidance. Secondly, whether or not Savage Minds is considered notable for Wikipedia's inclusion purposes is determined by Wikipedia's notability guideline. No one is going out with the purpose to attack you or censor your work. You're welcome to discuss the issue, as long as it's done civilly. Angry tirades are unlikely to achieve the responses you desire, after all. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What are the applicable policies/guidelines for editors who have a non-financial conflict of interest stemming from their relationship to an organisation anyway? That would be WP:COI, which applies to all conflicts of interest, financial or not. Mlb96 (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Kamala Beach

Draft:Kamala Beach was originally created as an WP:AFC draft and accepted by User:HitroMilanese. However, it was later draftified by User:GSS with the reason, "Violation of term of use per off-wiki evidence. Please see WP:PAID." I've asked on the talk page what the specific concerns were, since the page didn't seem to be promoting any specific business, but GSS hasn't edited since 9 October. Would anyone know what exactly the problem is that needs scrutiny for COI? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The said user should have clarified more on off-wiki evidence. I am in favour of moving the article back to mainspace and tag it with appropriate template (if essential). I don't understand why someone is willing to pay for a geographic location. Hitro talk 06:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I would wait until GSS comes back in the New Year. There is obviously something wrong if its tagged. It probably something like a development or something like that. scope_creep^Talk 10:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ed Greenwood

• Ed Greenwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 70.52.158.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure if this violates WP:COI, but per discussion on the IP's talk page they state that they are Ed Greenwood. Could someone please review the IP's contributions and address with them whether their edits are acceptable? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Ed Greenwood here. Once again, this IP user incorrectly asserts that they are "my" edits. As I said at the talk page, I have NEVER edited "my" Wikipedia page; these reversions of material 8.37.179.254 had repeatedly removed were done by librarians working at the same library I work at, initially without my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.158.33 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is also a COI concern for people who know the subject to be editing their page as well, but I will let someone else take a look at this and see what they have to say. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It look's like a SPA account, that made an attempt to add some books with no sources, that were reverted, and then the editor put the publishers in a series of books and changed a video title from Baldur's Gate to the Eye of the Beholder. He clearly states he is an Ed Greenwood. He has a clear COI. Seems to be tidying up his own article. Left an edit request message. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ed Greenwood, again. To reiterate: As I have repeatedly stated, I have NEVER edited my own article. I have, years in the past, when there was no such mechanism, sent messages to the Talk page of suggested title and date CORRECTIONS to publication credits others have added to my page, for others to review and add/implement if they see fit; I have never edited the page. Apparently other librarians restoring vandalism show up as having the same IP as I do. So, sorry, but I see no Conflict of Interest. And scope creep is incorrect in saying the librarians "made an attempt to add some books with no sources, that were reverted." They RESTORED computer game (Wikipedia uses the heading "video games") credits, not book credits, that had been on my page for years until removed (several times) this month. I notice that some book credits have vanished, too, so perhaps they were also removed. Out of interest, what "sources" should be provided? I was directed to Wikipedia policy "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly support the material"...I wouldn't think credited on the cover of a publication as its author, or on its legal page, would be likely to be challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.158.33 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Danna Azrieli

• Danna Azrieli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Azrieli Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yossilev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DavidV azri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Katvanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a paid single account, the paralel hebrew entry דנה עזריאלי is manifestly paid. (disclosure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:2:C10B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Added other connected contributors and the related Azrieli Group article, which has also been extensively edited by the SPA creator of the Danna Azrieli article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I notified the above listed users. Let's try not to forget to do this. --SVTCobra 22:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, I thought the onus was on the IP and I forgot about the others I had listed, my apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The onus was on the IP, but they seem to be a novice. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I should note that Kavanit is the username of the disclosed paid editor on Hebrew Wiki who wrote the original article this is a translation of, but there is no disclosure on enWiki, despite the fact that he has edited the EnWiki article, and it is possible that they are co-ordinating this clear UPE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Katvanit has an interesting knack for obtaining VRT permission for uploads on Commons. The variety seems almost implausible, but I guess that's a problem for Commons. --SVTCobra 23:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that implausible given that he is coordinating with clients who are directly paying him and who can be requested to give the required permission. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, I meant implausible for a non-involved party. --SVTCobra 23:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also a paid disclosure In the corrseponding Hebrew entry Azrieli Group and both the two hebrew entries and the two parallel english ones edited in close dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:3:E34C:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The Yossilev user is a WP:SPA and likely a UPE. The DavidV azri user is also a WP:SPA and looks like a UPE, came into copyedit the article. scope_creep^Talk 11:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Katvanit (official site) is a name of a big PR/content Israeli company. They employ dozens of paid editors in wikipedia (most of them undislose) you blocked many of them, but they keep coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FD:CA49:0:0:12CF:9526 (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If that is true, then the Kavanit account should be blocked, as English Wikipedia does not allow usernames that represent entire organisations or companies per WP:ISU Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reported the Katvanit username to WP:UAA. Looking at the Katvanit website, it is a clear violation of promotional username for UAA. scope_creep^Talk 16:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it true that Hebrew Wikipedia does not have a conflict of interest policy? --SVTCobra 17:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If I don't mistake the basic rules for COI established by wikimedia foundation and every wikipedia must use it, however, there are subtleties and Hebrew wikipedia is by far less atrict than the english one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FA:8D97:0:0:12EF:EF12 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

P.s. I conclude from Katvanit answer in his talk page that according to english wikipedia policy, english entry about Danna Azriely is COI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FA:8D97:0:0:12EF:EF12 (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Muso805

• Muso805 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For over two years, Muso805 has been contributing here, often side by side with user:Colin Larkin, who is the same Colin Larkin who has authored Encyclopedia of Popular Music (EPM) and All Time Top 1000 Albums. The vast majority of Muso805's edits consist of adding scores, rankings and other details from Larkin's books. This has been noticed by other editors in the past, including MrOllie and Notfrompedro. I'm afraid I've not added diffs here of the edits by Muso805, but I believe picking a page – any page – from his contribs history back to mid 2019 will adequately prove the point.

Most recently, there's been some discussion at the user's talk page about a likely COI. Muso805 denies that he is Larkin but, even aside from suspicions relating to his edits, there are several examples of interactions on talk pages that suggest he is:

• In an October 2019 discussion at User talk:Danski454, Muso805 asks Danski454 why they changed some information Muso805 had added on All Time Top 1000 Albums. Danski replies, pinging Muso and telling him he must be mistaken. But it's then user:Colin Larkin that responds, saying, "Apologies -- you are correct I took an older change/deletion from you in error. Thank you for pointing out. Regards."

• MrOllie came up with another example, from November 2019. Colin Larkin posts a message at User talk:Cwmhiraeth asking about a page move at Colin Larkin (writer). In their replies there, Cwmhiraeth and another editor each ping Colin Larkin, but it's Muso805 who responds: "Thank you both. I admit my question was not that clear -- I think I get it."

• Also, there's a February 2021 discussion at User talk:Muso805 (as later queried by Notfrompedro). There, Muso805 is telling an anecdote about a 1980 David Crosby gig which he attended. When Muso is asked for more details by another editor, it's Colin Larkin who replies, with a promise to "reveal all" via email.

I think these are all pretty clear-cut examples that show the two users are one and the same. Whether he writes "EPM" or just "rating" in his edit summaries, Muso805 has added hundreds of Larkin scores at album articles for at least two years; before then, it was mostly rankings in the All Time Top 1000 Albums. JG66 (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I have never met Muso805, he has contacted me a few times over the years. I did ask him to respond to something a while back, he clearly knows my work very well - I (maybe foolishly) gave him my then log in password as I cannot self promote. I have since changed my password. There is a possibility that this may be a woman who I had problems with several years ago - but have no way of proving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Larkin (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yael Shelbia

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

By appearances, this user has been editing the article about themselves. Coincidentally, User:Katvanit (from above) has uploaded an image of this person. --SVTCobra 17:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw this too, but the editing didn't look that promotional. I note she replaced the image uploaded by Katvanit with one she uploaded herself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Katvanit employs many editors, one of them is User:אור פ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8_%D7%A4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FA:8D97:0:0:12EF:EF12 (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Katvanit worked also with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rotemtal and with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheParkKing

- there is paid disclosure to the corresponding hebrew entries Katvanit created and the three of them wrote in english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FC:C4C2:0:0:12F1:D584 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Katvanit rabbit hole looks pretty deep. I wonder if they all edit from the same IP at their offices. --SVTCobra 20:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think not, Shauli Cohen,the CEO mostly hire freelance writers, each of them edit from his home or other premise.

Draft:Virgo

Created by User:Virgo4africa. Brand new editor, probably clueless. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

SWVL

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

Abdelrahman is the Global Head of Marketing at SWVL, currently deleting the SWVL page historical events in favor of showing company image in a certain way. 217.54.134.239 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Rp2006

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rp2006 has made an edit to an article that includes a reference to a source with which I believe Rp2006 has a WP:COI relationship. The content in question was initially added by an editor other than Rp2006, later removed by a second editor, and reinstated by Rp2006. I believe that Rp2006 should disclose their relationship to the source per WP:COI, but Rp2006 does not believe a disclosure is required because the edit was a revert and not adding the source in the first instance. I don't believe the fact that it was a revert relieves Rp2006's obligations under WP:COI, and that if anything, a COI is even more relevant when it comes to reinstating removed content than adding it in the first instance. Must Rp2006 disclose any COI relationship they have with an edit, if that edit is a revert? Levivich 00:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is complicated by the fact that making references to the COI Rp2006 has with certain publishers/magazines/companies is hard to do without outing, even when the COI exists, unless he comes forward and properly discloses the COI both in his user page and in relevant articles (per WP:DCOI). Note the user page is not obligatory, but it would be helpful in discussions to know how another editor might be affiliated with a subject. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is missing in this statement is the timeline. @Levivich is making it sound like this all happened within minutes of the revert. The article in question was added on Feb 7, 2019. And then about twenty changes were made to the page over the next couple years. Then an editor on November 24, 2021 decided to make massive changes to the article that would require a lot of time to go though, and much discussion on the talk page. Then on November 25, 2021 Rp2006 reverts those changes. There were over 10K characters removed from the article and reverting those changes are just a revert. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sgerbic (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The last edit is not a 10K character revert, Sgerbic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if it were, I don't think it matters if the COI content is reinstated on its own or as part of a larger revert (both are the situation here, as there were multiple edits). Levivich 01:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You take responsibility for any edit you make, even if it's "just a revert." Maybe if the entire topic area wasn't a minefield of connected editors adding each other as sources it wouldn't be so easy to accidentally step on a land mine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Where do you get that SFR (if I'm allowed to call you that) who says that "editors are adding each other as sources"? Sgerbic (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty common knowledge that members of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and writers for SI use each other as sources for articles. I believe that's actually one of the actions you promote, per your own writing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is a member of CSI? I'm not clear on that, does that mean they have a magazine subscription? Sgerbic (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean something like A columnist for Skeptical Inquirer... and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry adding CSI and SI sources as cites, and training others to do the same. Can we not play this game? If enough people are doing that eventually one of them is going to revert and restore a source they wrote and cross the COI line. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, yes. If you make an edit that in some way involves a source that you have a COI with, then you must disclose that COI. The nature of the edit is irrelevant to this, and it should not be relevant - I feel there is a bigger picture that I am missing to this discussion, so I can't comment on the details, but it isn't hard to imagine situations where someone with a COI prefers the former version of a page due to it aligning with their COI, and thus reverts to that version. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The bigger picture is a shitshow, I'll save you some life expectancy and recommend you don't get involved too much, BilledMammal. If interested, however, you can find the relevant thread in ANI under section "Outing attempt". Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I you are sharing links ACS - why not give @BilledMammalBilledmammal the link to the multi-day drama on ANI that got you banned from there? Remember that nightmare where you started outing people? Oh and the thread of you trying to rile people up to work against other editors? Sgerbic (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not responding to what I see as irrelevant to the current discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is obvious at all. Here is a close analogy (as I see it) to the situation as it is CLAIMED to have happened. BTW, I think the issue is a SELFPUB one, not COI. Steven King is a WP editor. Has been for years. Has thousands of edits on all sorts of articles. His WP ID is not his name as he does not want to be outed due to harassment and stalking concerns. He has an interest in, watches and edits tons of Scary as Shit fiction pages... that's what he likes to work on (Not his own books mind you). On one page he is watching, someone(else) - he gets a notice via WP email - added one of HIS own books as a citation (in an appropriate way). Cool. But does King need to now slap a SELFPUB disclaimer on the page? I don't think anyone would say so. But years later, a newish editor (who seems to not understand COI issues) comes in and makes a mess of the page (in his opinion and other editors) by deleting what she sees as COI issues (and they do not) all over the place, including deleting the King citation. So, King reverts the edit restoring the page to its long-standing form. You are telling me King now needs to declare a SELFPUB on that page? Worse - doing so he must by definition out himself? Really? Rp2006 (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have a COI you must disclose it. I am sure admins can help you by email to find a way to do so without outing yourself. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You, as usual, missed the entire point. The scenario where King must claim a SELFPUB situation in that case seems outrageous. Saying it is COI seems even nuttier. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Then the other editors who thought it was a problem could have reverted, and just like that, there is no issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually other editors did revert the same set of changes, so it seemed clear consensus to not let the changes stand -- as I recall. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why not continue to allow them to revert? Clearly if there were multiple editors reverting a single editor your own edits were unnecessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about King. The point still stands. COIs must be disclosed, and the easiest way to do so is in the Talk page of articles. See Talk:Eindhoven University of Technology for an example of me disclosing my coi in an easy, straightforward way. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If an editor removes a cite to King, and King reverts that editor thereby reinstating the cite to King, then King must disclose the COI, in my view. Levivich 01:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

SELFPUB may apply (though probably not to King), but unless I have misunderstood this situation, you are thinking of SELFCITE? As I understand it, SELFCITE is a form of COI.

As for King, he should note a COI if he wants to make the reversal - and if he doesn't want to mention a COI, he should leave the revert for another editor to do. This is true in general, but particularly true in this example where other editors holding Kings position exist and so it is unreasonable to expect that the edit will go unnoticed by non-COI editors. This is because correcting what are seen as mistakes by a COI editor - regardless of whether the editor is correct about them being a mistake - does and should fall under COI guidelines. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A COI is a COI. While WP:COIADVICE does have a section on unambiguous uncontroversial edits, it is very very clear that what has been going on the specific article page is controversial though I recognise that the editors involved may not be able to recognise it. Paraphrasing and expanding upon what I said earlier at ANI, if the author of the source requests an editor to read a source they have written, it is a COI. If that same editor edits that page, to include or restore that source if it is removed by another editor where that edit was made in good faith, it is a COI.

In this situation, if Rp2006 is the author of the source, they must disclose it and self revert. As it is a content dispute, Rp2006 should then recuse themself from that discussion, and allow a consensus to form between the other editors at that article's talk page. If Rp2006 is not the author of that source, then I do not understand why this issue has now spanned multiple noticeboards and user talk pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why the edit over which there is a COI concern is not diffed here? That edit contains a link to an article on an external website which contains a number of statements evincing an approach to Wikipedia editing that I think is problematic from a COI point of view. The external article also mentions GSoW, which is lead by Sgerbic. I think editors here should read that article, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to link it here? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure either and that's the reason why I didn't include it in the OP :-) Levivich 02:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Because of outing concerns that have essentially been Streisand'd to hell and back at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly if the relevant section in the article talk page would've been collapsed and the discussion continued this whole fiasco could've been avoided. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Well, we have a pretty heated argument very quickly. But why isn't the noticeboard informed of what article we are talking about? What is the source that generates the alleged COI? What are the diffs that demonstrate the allegations? --SVTCobra 04:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

SVTCobra, affected pages are Skeptical_Inquirer and Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry (SCI) and all related pages. The article in question here is Sharon_A._Hill.

Also Sgerbic you have an even more obvious COI with respect to SCI. You also need to declare your COI for all matters related with SCI. Mvbaron (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Sgerbic and Rp2006 you both have added your own names and/or citations to your own works at the above mentioned pages. (if anyone want's the diffs, I'm happy to supply them but seeing that WP:OUTING concerns are so prominent here, I won't do it now) Regardless, this is clearly WP:COI editing and you both need to declare your COI either at your user page or the talk page. And you both should only propose edit requests for your COI pages and not make substantial edits yourself. All this discussion above is utterly pointless and a distraction at best, you have a COI and you need to declare it and you should not add content about yourself directly. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I have NEVER added content about myself and am not happy that anyone glibly says I have. Sgerbic (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit appears to qualify (see "skepticism" section). Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Special:Diff/746026432. Now that I look, your group is doing a ton of COI editing. Your name appears on 64 mainspace articles [46], and I think all of them were added by you or members of your group. Huh, this is bigger than I thought. Levivich 18:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

During the enormous ANI thread a month ago this came up, written by Sgerbic, This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.[47] I don't understand how this wasn't cause for immediate sanctions. Any other COI editing of this style, on this scale, would be shut down almost immediately. Imagine if it were another publication organizing off wiki to improve their exposure? After all, Wikipedia is the perfect venue! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this an issue that might need to be dealt with by arbcom? If it is hundreds of COI violations over multiple years as a modus operandi perhaps it goes above just community discussion in a noticeboard. I don't know how these things are handled, and I'd rather give the affected editors the benefit of the doubt, so I'm just asking.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom is for issues that cannot be dealt with by the community. If this ends up being ongoing, then maybe, but otherwise it is better if it is handled by other means. - Bilby (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My concern would be with avoiding outing editors who haven't disclosed their COI onwiki but have talked about their edits (or have been talked about) offwiki, like in the rp case, and do have a coi. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

After reading everything to do with this, both from the current event and the one a couple of months ago, I'm somewhat in favour of an investigation here as implied by Levivich if there's the likelihood of this circular COI editing occurring across a great many articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes you have (I said I had diffs): [48] and I am baffled that you say you didn't. Mvbaron (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Straight question. @Rp2006: Would you be willing to disclose whether any of your personal works are (or have been) cited in any page on which you have performed a revert over the last 30 days? I have no power to compel you to do so, and you are free to decline. JBchrch talk 00:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Dragon King (dinosaur skull)

• Dragon King (dinosaur skull) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maudjohnson90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently came out of AfC. I strongly suspect that Maudjohnson90 (A SPA) has a COI with regard to people who own or owned the skull. For one thing, she uploaded a diagram made by an expert showing the completeness of the skull apparently made in 2003 that is not available anywhere online. Second, it also includes uncited and unverifiable claims that wouldn't be known to anybody other than those closely associated with the skull. The skull had a brief spurt of press coverage when it was attempted to be auctioned in early 2015, but there is no followup coverage, which implies that it failed to sell at auction. The article includes the claim that Dragon King is understood to be the most expensive skull to ever trade privately. which isn't cited or made in any of the relevant articles, but implies that Maud has insider knowledge, which is confirmed by a post made by her to the Teahouse, where she states that the skull was sold privately "last year". Maud has also added references to the skull to the main Triceratops article as well as the Hell Creek Formation article. A COI notice on her talkpage went unanswered. In her teahouse post, she stated: I should make clear that I have no financial stake in this at all, it is simply a fact that the skull is the biggest found and I think should be public information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious

Silas nganyi seems suspicious because of this revision. The user seems to have some relationship with them. Also, see the talk page. 2409:4063:4005:2624:0:0:1D03:70B1 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't a conflict of interest. It's someone posting a memorial, apparently about their mother, in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I've removed it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible SEO activity

• Alial17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd appreciate some extra eyes on contributions from this user. About 75% of the references they've added have been to commercial sites that would be unlikely to meet WP:RS guidelines. I realize that for some topics it's difficult to find non-commercial links, and I'm sure we have a lot of good-faith references to commercial blogs about various topics. In these particular contributions, my "SEO radar" is pinging a bit. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It certainly does look suspicious, especially with the very intermittent editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry what have I done wrong? I have put in valuable content and referenced the content to the blog articles and cited them properly (I think). You are right, most blogs on the topic are commercial blogs, and there are only a few sites that even have them. I even deleted an existing obvious citation to an about page that had no reference value. I am not sure what you mean with intermittent editing, do you prefer I rewrite the whole post? Regards Alaila17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.86.66 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Paid work discovery

• International Trade Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Proof of identity (blockchain consensus) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Will Storr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Frank LoVecchio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Marcelo Claure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AtomsRavelAz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just wanted to bring attention to commissioned work which is going on.

• International Trade Council [49]
• Proof of identity (blockchain consensus) [50]
• Will Storr [51]
• Frank LoVecchio [52]
• Marcelo Claure (here this UPE was hired after failure of User:Centrereded) and many more are there on their profile. Marti Siurana (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Marti Siurana (talk · contribs), is right, I have received compensation for some of my edits, but not the majority of them. I have always made sure my edits comply with the sites guidelines. I apologize for not clarifying it before, it's just something I kept postponing for later. I will make the necessary disclosures as per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, please let me know any further action I should take. Thanks, AtomsRavelAz talk 17:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC) AtomsRavelAz Thanks for your candidness. It must be because you were unaware, but your articles are well-written and neutral so no action required. Just declare COI edits like User:Bbarmadillo did and everything should be fine. Marti Siurana (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Marti Siurana: Thanks a lot for your understanding, I really appreciate it. I will declare the COI edits. Thanks again, AtomsRavelAz talk 18:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

More eyes

• Robert Evans (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wiki54321editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Direct editing on Robert Evans (writer). 176.33.97.82 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)