Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Hundreds of RNA motif pages: WP:TRANSWIKI would seem to be the solution
Respond to a comment about transwiki
Line 980: Line 980:


*{{ping|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 {{U|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 {{U|Antonipetrov}}? I admittedly have no experience in [[WP:TRANSWIKI]] but I am sure someone does. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 10:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|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 {{U|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 {{U|Antonipetrov}}? I admittedly have no experience in [[WP:TRANSWIKI]] but I am sure someone does. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Antonipetrov|Antonipetrov]] ([[User talk:Antonipetrov|talk]]) 11:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


== Chris Lamb (software developer) ==
== Chris Lamb (software developer) ==

Revision as of 11:13, 1 December 2021

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (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-wp@wikipedia.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:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Brentwood College School
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Julie Carpenter
    Talk:Cinq Music Group
    Talk:Citadel LLC
    Talk:Clover Health
    Talk:Cumming Corporation
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Sonalde Desai
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Elan (director)
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Grammarly
    Talk:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Hannover Re
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Huron Consulting Group
    Talk:Illa del Rei
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Labcorp
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:Chris McCarthy (executive)
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Amy Padnani
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Research Corporation
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:The Student Room
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Unity (game engine)
    Talk:List of University of Chicago alumni
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

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

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

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

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

    Aside from the exclusive use of PRIMARY SOURCES for St Helena Magistrates' Court I see very little issue with how this is written, and it was accepted into mainspace by an established editor. Even Draft:Ben Brown (lawyer) seems rather neutral, non-promotional and not spammy. It is encouraging to see that they're going through the proper procedures to having it moved to mainspace. The article COI tag should be sufficient for the reviewer.
    Of course these articles and editors do warrant being watched should their intentions change. The COI notice on their respective talk pages seem like all that is needed unless they begin controversial edits. TiggerJay (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Two new IPs have been used to delete the CoI top-flag (91.232.235.203, 91.232.208.209 - I can't find a way to include a clear linespace), so three times now. I have no doubt what is going on here. I do not generally use coin, but it was a toss-up with cu formal/informal and spi. I didn't want to, but the recent deletions have forced me to establish a bio Draft Talk. Pinging Tiggerjay, scope_creep.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism IP added attacking my recent worklist, 91.232.235.4.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another IP range vandal destroying the Draft Talk page, 91.232.208.118.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And still another IP user just removed this section of the noticeboard - 91.232.235.22. Very obviously the same person, every IP mentioned in this thread geolocates to (what do you know) the island of St. Helena via a telecom provider based in Guernsey. always forever (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Frederick D. Sulcer

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

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

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

    Tomwsulcer has been editing here for a long time and made significant contributions. However, this kind of editing about family members is problematic (and without proper disclosure) - as is the large number of quotes and photos that make these articles look more like obits or personal websites than encyclopaedia articles. However, from a quick look through the archives of the editor's talk page, I can't see any discussion of COI (other than Tomwsulcer telling other people not to edit articles about themselves), so I have left the guidelines and a comment on his talk page now. I have also edited and tagged a couple of the articles that I think have issues. Probably up to Tom to reply here next. Thanks Melcous (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I've been open about my connection to my father. I write about a huge slew of subjects, on politics, biographies, planets, fashion trends, history, philosophy, and I always try to be fair. Almost every sentence I add is referenced, and it's all good stuff, it's all real, not made up. So if other contributors go about removing my good content, in essence, they will be committing a sort of vandalism by removing referenced content. Surely Melcous doesn't think of himself/herself as a vandal when removing referenced content. Sure, it's easy to slap tags on articles, easy to click on revert, but it's hard to do what I do, which is contribute good content to this good encyclopedia, and I've contributed substantially to this project, all volunteering, never getting paid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tomwsulcer, you have noted your connection on the talk page of the article about your father, but the issue is that you have not abided by the WP:COI policy on a a number of other articles, where you have not properly disclosed your connection. You have also added content to these articles that is not neutral including numerous images, excessive quotes, and links to your family members in articles where they are at best only tangentially related. What is being asked of you now is whether you will refrain from directly editing articles about your family members, instead using the talk pages to request edits? Melcous (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Melcous I'm tangentially related to everybody and everything, family, friends, acquaintances, people I meet on the street, every subject, every idea, my town and state and country (Summit, NJ, USA), my hemisphere (North America), my world, my planet Earth, subjects I've studied or come across or want to learn more about such as History of citizenship (hey I'm a citizen -- a conflict of interest?). And I want to write about everything. If we met at a coffee shop, and I begin to talk to you, Melcous, like I like to talk to pretty much everybody, within a few sentences of our conversation, I'd be wondering, hmmm, how can I get Melcous into Wikipedia? An article? A photo? As a reference? See, would that be a conflict of interest? It's just how I am with what my friends often say is an out-of-control hobby of Wikipedia! It's not about money -- I never take money for any of my 14+ years of contributions, although I sometimes have gotten a 'thank you'. But my contributions, over the years, if I had been, say, a writer for the Encyclopedia Britannica, would have garnered hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Wikipedia gets it for free.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And what often happens with me is that I'm so busy writing about something else that I forget to disclose every connection, but what I'm saying is, I'd have to do this for practically every subject, since, like I said, I'm connected to everybody and everything and every idea. Like, right now, me writing this, I'm thinking what else I could be writing about...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tomwsulcer: your relationship with family members listed here is not tangential. Adding an article you have written as a reference is not tangential. WP:COIADVICE is relevant, particularly the sentence "If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit." Perhaps it is time to back away and use the talk page on articles or situations where you have a close connection? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Russ Woodroofe: Pretty much everything is tangential, family members, extended family members, people I know, places I go, things I think -- and pretty much everything in my world is a "close connection" as is the case with all Wikipedia contributors. So if we'd really like to be true to the ideas of conflict-of-interest, maybe I shouldn't write about anything? Maybe nobody should write about anything? Like, I ate once at Fuddruckers; forget what, maybe a hamburger, so if I do a substantial revamp of the article, am I supposed to write on the talk page, hey, I might be biased because I once ate there? The key tests of whether something should stay in Wikipedia revolve around whether something is good information, verifiable, useful, factual, referenced? None of us are truly 'neutral' about anything -- we're all biased, all connected to things. If you examine my contributions, you'll see that it's all real, all good, all referenced, all factual. About my particular family members, those things are written and I don't intend to keep writing about them, and yes I'll try to write on the talk pages first if I do, requesting a comment, although in my experience I doubt much will happen.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you *truly* not know the difference between a relationship someone has with a place they ate a burger at and a relationship someone has with one of their relatives or are you simply being playful in conversation? Because if you truly don't, then the community can't simply rely on your goodwill in the future and will need to consider something more formal to slow down your excessive documentation of the Sulcerverse. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Every references has a quote, which also seems a bit excessive. They are linked as a group of articles, with a particular style. Is it MOS compliant to have 33 quotes in an article, for example at so small, which is quite a small article? scope_creepTalk 12:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There are reasons why there are quotes within references. First, if the url link becomes unworkable over time, subject to link rot, then the quote within the reference will still be there for other users to see. Second, for readers wanting to check a source, the quote helps them find it within the source. It's all about verifiability, and you, Melcous, removing quotes is a kind of borderline vandalism, thwarting the ability of others to verify the content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I've sent Capitola Dickerson to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitola Dickerson. There is only one obit and two incidental sources with no secondaries visible. scope_creepTalk 12:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Our culture is highly biased against African-Americans and against women, and here is one who, despite all of these biases, shines; it would be a shame to have her removed, although none of us will even begin to think that there was any racism or sexism involved, since we all assume that you, scope creep are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Børge Brende

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

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

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

    Supermann

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

    Yes. I like military films. I am a veteran, though never touched a weapon or been to a shooting range here in the United States. Grateful for the U.S. stopping World War II. Guilty as charged on that point. Went to see American Sniper yesterday at AMC Theatres, but didn't think I need to make further edits on that page. Never killed a chicken in life. So I apologize if I want to raise awareness on military films, be them good or bad, incl. Hogan's Starship Troopers 3: Marauder. Grateful for Bliss Media having brought Hacksaw Ridge to the Chinese market, making it the highest grossing foreign war movie. Obviously, Hacksaw can't beat The Battle at Lake Changjin which is now the second highest grossing film in China. My 2,333 edits speak of my passions in a lot of other areas as well, because ultimately, I am a pacifist. Hopefully, no World War III on Taiwan. Please let me know how else I can cooperate. I know TheBirdsShedTears has launched his own investigation to reach out to Dublin Live and Brian Dillon. Good luck on that. Truth will come out. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermann (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well hmmm. It is true that Supermann has an unusual editing history. He started editing 15 years ago, but averaged 13 edits a year his first eight years, so he really only started in 2014. Anyway in all that time he has only 2,391 edts. The pattern is high activity in June and July 2017 and in July-thru-November 2021 and pretty desultory activity in other years. So some thoughts on a pattern like that:
    • It would be consistent with a deep troll account being kicked over just enough to appear legit while waiting for the next commission (there's no proof of this of course).
    • On the other hand, if Supermann is taking commissions, he's apparently had two in 15 years, and the first was eleven years after he registered... that does show quite a lot of dedication and patience for two small commissions. But certainly possible. The Russians etc do stuff like that all the time on other websites I am told.
    And anyway, we do know that Supermann, in his one other burst of activity in 2017, engaged in seriously bad actions. He was blocked twice for seriously bad behavior including sockpuppeting, apparently in the interest of promoting Thomas Price (actor) and Bliss Media, probably for financial considerations (altho those articles both still exist, FWIW). So I mean coming back four years later suddenly all excited about Stephan Hogan does look kind of suspicious.
    On the other hand, Supermann's #1 most active article by a good margin is Film censorship in China (208 edits, and 104 on the talk page). A quick look there indicates to me that he's just interested in the subject, not working for the Chinese government or forces opposed to the Chinese government or anything. Willing to be corrected. Of course this could be cover for other, nefarious, activity, but anything could be anything. Or it could be that Supermann has complex motives -- maybe he likes to occasionally edit here for fun but is also available for a commission if one comes up. There have certainly been many editors like that.
    Supermann was extensively yelled at recently at ANI, but for unrelated things: having some kind of political agenda (left wing I guess?) and (allegedly) acting badly. On the other hand, haven't we all been dragged to ANI to be yelled at. Somebody is doing it to me right now in fact. And if you're here to make money but you're also showing a high profile and pissing people off with political battlegrounding rather than being low-key and blandly polite, you're not a very good PR flack I'd say. Which, I suppose some people aren't.
    All in all, yeah it could be sketchy. I'm not familiar with COI investigations so I don't know what the standards of proof are. But then on the other hand, Stephan Hogan is probably notable enough for an article (fairly easily in my view, but not a slam dunk and others may disagree), and at least the article is not a hagiography, it's just basic facts. So, could be worse?
    So what are the next steps here? Not familiar with this page. I see that Supermann was determined to have corruptly created two other articles, yet those articles still exist, so is deleting the article on Stephan Hogan in the cards? And/or is Supermann to be sanctioned? Or what? Herostratus (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    COI/UPE allegations of Supermann at the AfD, DRV and talk pages seemed to be getting out of hand and disruptive but there emerged historic reasons why people might be concerned about Supermann's current articles; and appeared to be disrupting source/notability based discussions. If there are hard evidence of issue set someone bring them here for scrutiny, if nothing appears here then this can be closed in due course without issue. In the end, roughly speaking, the XfD should close independently of whether Supermann had a COI or not based on sources and based on the fact the article is fairly well, if not perfectly, WP:V. Those are my thoughts anyway. And I'm not too familiar with COIN myself. Djm-leighpark 15:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer, "(left wing I guess?", my limited understanding is military agenda is usually right wing, conservative, Republican stuff. But Desmond Doss proves one could perform military service admirably without killing anyone. No Military–industrial complex on me. Supermann (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Supermann: If I have misrepresented the or meant anything inappropriate about the "zealousness"/"enthusiam" I apologise. It was more meant to try to give one possible explanation for your editing pattern. At the moment I have just taken a hit from @Bbb23's slapdown at ANI so perhaps he'd better consider closing this one as well. Thankyou, Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to send this back to ANI, in relation to the "extensively yelled at" thread linked earlier, but the behavioral aspect is, to me, more disturbing than the less tangible accusations of COI editing. In particular, the DRV that Sandstein closed recently contains a whole lot of the kind of dramatics that NinjaRobotPirate and HighinBC found so troubling in the ANI thread--and most troubling, to me, is this edit--BusterD is of course the admin who closed that Hogan AfD. If one is looking for "how to deflect and be as uncollaborative as one can be", that DRV has plenty of it, and I am wondering how the editor hasn't been blocked indefinitely already. And Yamla, when you last unblocked them, you said "agreement to stay away from Bliss Media"--they didn't keep to that agreement. Maybe 2020 is water under the bridge, but in my opinion the user has been disruptive for long enough that it's worth looking at the larger picture, which now includes socking, COI editing (Bliss Media), harassment, and putting up yuge smokescreens. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the alternate accounts, Shxiyi (which was renamed from BlissMedia) declared themselves the agent of Thomas Price. See here. I believe there's no doubt that Shxiyi and Supermann are run by the same person, but this edit admits it. I can't say for sure the editor was telling the truth about being an agent for Price. I think there's enough there that I felt it appropriate to unblock only with their agreement to stay away from Bliss Media, broadly construed. I received that agreement, hence the unblock in 2017. --Yamla (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yamla, [4], [5]. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what point you are trying to make. No edits to Bliss Media for 17 months now. The 2018 and 2020 edits are well beyond the block. There is no puffery. Only adding filmography. Right now there is simply none. The length that some people is willing to go is astounding. Luckily, no truth to me ever being paid by Bliss Media to edit on Wikipedia. They simply don't care. That's why NO MORE EDITS!!! And Stephen Hogan has nothing to do with Bliss Media. Please. No more Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. There is no way I am this Thomas Price's agent. I am just a nobody here in NYC. Happy to meet anyone face to face tomorrow in Central Park and do jogging together! Supermann (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Supermann, I'd hoped you'd be out walking the dogs with me, but you were nowhere to be found. Not Ponce De Leon, not on Mastin Lane...are you going to miss dessert and Wonder Years too? Also, you were unblocked in what, June 2017? on the condition that you stay away from Bliss Media, and there you were, three edits. What, you forgot? And after all the hullabaloo, and the notes on the previous AfD and the comments by Sandstein, you still can't stay away from the AfD so it can be judged on its merits? You sure don't act like someone who had a close call at ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I followed those geographical names you were saying. But as demonstrated in your [34], [35]. The topic ban on them have been removed by the time I made new edits which are minimal. Please stop gross misrepresentation of what happened. It's unbecoming of an admin. Supermann (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "The topic ban on them have been removed by the time I made new edits", this is at least possible and will be easy for you to demonstrate. Can you please show where that happened? It's directly relevant to this discussion. I want to be clear, it's quite possible that you did indeed have your topic ban lifted, I just can't immediately determine that. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yamla: Not sure how much it matters now, since he's currently indeffed, but there was a topic ban on all film articles that ran from August 2017 to August 2018, which would've run course by the time the 2018 edit to Bliss Media was made. The two overlapped, and I suspect he confused lifting the ban from all film articles as also lifting the ban from Bliss Media specifically. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Supermann was indefinitely blocked 2 minutes before this question was asked CiphriusKane (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies It's already back at ANI CiphriusKane (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Emunah La-Paz

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

    I concur with @Justlettersandnumbers. I nominated the article for deletion in good faith in order to give the community the opportunity to decide its fate FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk

    This article is not in need of shortening please replace what was deleted. If someone deleted an article you worked on would it be a conflict of interest? Wikipedia has added more rules, so not just anyone can edit articles or destroy them. This is clearly a form of harassment. This article for the last 5 years was expanded and approved by verified members of Wikipedia. To have someone shorten this down to two lines, and then a deletion notice, is unacceptable. I am expecting this article to be restored to it's previous form that was not corrupted whatsoever at the time.
    Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhubbard (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The biography begins "Emunah La-Paz is the nom de plume of Vicki L. Hubbard, an American author". The editor who created the article has the username 'Vhubbard' and has contributed to no other articles. It would seem that this is an autobiography, a form of conflict of interest editing, in which case the author should limit themselves to making edit requests on the article's talk page and not edit the article directly other than as allowed at Wikipedia:Autobiography. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curb Safe Charmer Deep in the article edit history you will see contributions from declared paid editor Wiki Page Polisher. That edit was neither helpful nor unhelpful, but a paid editor was engaged by someone to work on the article. I can make no assumptions about who that was.
    You will also see on the creating editor's talk page that they are failing to understand the difference between having an interest in one's editing in Wilkipedia and a real world conflict of interest. It may be indignation that is fuelling this lack of understanding
    It would potentially be helpful if they received a kind explanation. They are making various unfounded accusations of racially inspired motives for deletion, accusations they must feel are genuine, but they are in an aggrieved state.
    While I accept this this noticeboard is the wrong forum to deal with the accusations, the correct forum is one of the drama boards, and that would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Kindness is more likely to bear fruit. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent: There's no mystery about who the paid editor was working for, they disclose on their user page that they were paid by "Little Ant Productions on behalf of Emunah La-Paz". A google search will show that Emunah La-Paz is the Production Manager at Little Ant Productions. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. It follows that the entire thing is a pure advert FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The account Vhubbard has been renamed. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This has concluded with Hubbard's new ID being blocked for many things, not least of which is sock puppetry and the article deleted. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Koch Marshall Trio & Guy King

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

    In case anyone is wondering, Lightburst has been notified of this post. Lightburst blanks their talk page frequently. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that I've met them before. I don't keep in touch or know them on a personal level. I certainly have no close connection to any of them. I don't think it's a COI to write about someone because you've talked with them or admire them - I also wrote Eric Tessmer after meeting him. I'll leave this to the community to make a decision, but I believe that a COI involves some strong personal relationship, which definitely isn't the case here. Lightburst (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Earlier this year Greg Koch tweeted about using one your guitars, calling you "buddy", which was several years after you initially created the article. Can you further elaborate on your relationship with Greg Koch? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have also described Koch as a "friend" on your personal website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of these articles have the date of birth but they are tagged for work. Where did the date of birth's come from exactly? scope_creepTalk 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent Toby Lee Marshall to Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Lee Marshall. scope_creepTalk 16:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    - [6] Levivich 21:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And when someone said "that quote is kind of promotional" and/or removed it, did LB argue and edit war over it? What happened when someone brought it up on the talk page? Or to LB directly? This is all rhetorical, of course, because it looks like nobody did any of that (apologies if I've missed it -- I just looked in this thread, on the talk page, in the edit history, and in the recent history of LB's talk page), but instead just started digging up his personal information on another project and crawling through his personal online presence as a first step, with COIN as the second step, and now third comes identifying any actual problematic content. That might not be WP:OUTING, but it's creepy and inappropriate. That he added a couple glowing quotes to an article shows he's guilty of doing what most fans of [whatever] have done when writing on Wikipedia until told that we try not to do that here because it makes the article too promotional. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    :::

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

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

    I saw Hemiauchenia's comments above. I do not know if Lightburst has been paid for his editing, but that is certainly one plausible explanation for a solid year of editing nothing else. This is not the only conflict of interest that Lightburst has, but I am unable to identify the other major area without violating the rules here. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is a plausible explanation of a brand new account created only to edit the conflict of interest noticeboard? :P — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Everybody has to start somewhere. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/Please_sign_my_guestbook You haven't edited much at all. Do you have an alternate account you use? You only edited on November 2nd, November 12, and total on the 19th. I find it unlikely you are a new editor. Dream Focus 22:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unlikely" is an understatement. Now CU blocked. Levivich 23:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please sign my guestbook was definitely lying about how he found out about this thread. Both the Lightburst and Sulcer COIs were something that were initially discussed off-wiki. I have no desire to further press Lightburst on the issue, as long as the problematic content is dealt with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't disagree that "Please sign my guestbook" has a strangely and highly suspicious short edit history, don't CU blocks usually come with some kind of note such as "ban evasion" or "sock puppetry"? And if COIN entries are being discussed off-Wiki before they arrive here, shouldn't this notice board be informed of how it is happening, Hemiauchenia? Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, Lourdes got really upset when people went to her earliest edits and found out that she was a mildly famous singer, so upset in fact that she got the edits including logs totally wiped from Wikipedia even though they had been declined to be oversighted. My intent here isn't to harass people about their real life identities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps it's against my better judgement to get involved here, but don't hold your breath on Lightburst answering you with an explanation here. They have history of avoiding questions and accepting a certain level of responsibility for mistakes (1, 2). You might get them to politely ask you to ignore everything and move on without ever admitting a mistake. And while some may question my role here due to the ARS disputes, all I can say is I've seen the personal web page Hemiauchenia alludes to (I think) and consider it doubtful that LB did not have a COI. I've also written about things I shouldn't have in the past, but I don't do it now. All it would take is for LB to say it was a mistake and they won't do it again. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like to know more about the off-wiki discussions, mentioned by Hemiauchenia: "Both the Lightburst and Sulcer COIs were something that were initially discussed off-wiki." -- GreenC 19:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What happened is Hemiauchenia saw some posts on Wikipediocracy, and decided to effectively proxy (at least according to the strict interpretation of that policy that folks have been advocating for lately) for at least one globally banned user by pasting the allegations directly over to COIN with no diffs of promotional content (which isn't to say none exist, of course), no effort to address the problematic content that does exist, and [apparently] no prior on-wiki communication about the issue. Is there a valid point here? Possibly? Maybe LB is in that gray area of fandom where they start to write a little promotionally. Usually when someone's concern is the content, however, and not just "getting" a Wikipedian, there is a nonzero attempt to identify content specific issues, improve them, and communicate about the issue before submitting a complaint to a noticeboard. Sigh. If you told me a year ago I'd be defending both COI editing (however trivial the COI) and ARS members in multiple threads, I'd say it wouldn't be all that likely, but the way some of these threads are playing out just doesn't sit well with me. I've said my piece and will shut up now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea about the Wikipedia identity about the Wikipediocracy user who brought this up, so I was not knowingly proxying for a globally banned user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I should say it's possible I'm wrong, and I shouldn't have made the statement about "at least one globally banned user" conclusively. One of the regulars could say better whether the user whose name is very similar to a globally banned user is in fact the same. The bigger point is it does seem like the odds are pretty good that proxying for someone you don't know on a forum which welcomes banned Wikipedians might result in proxying for a banned Wikipedian. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are aware that the 'forum which welcomes banned Wikipedians' also welcomes non-banned ones? Including several past and present ArbCom members... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipediocracy has become a powerful and influential group of editors. -- GreenC 17:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about that, for several reasons. It has however managed on occasion to draw media attention to serious issues that the 'community' itself has been reluctant to deal with. And done so in an open manner, unlike a lot of the coordinated actions of 'groups of editors' wishing to be 'influential'. Not everything that goes on there is always to everyone's liking, but that's the nature of the beast - people hold diverse opinions on the merits or otherwise of Wikipedia and other WMF projects, and likewise have diverse opinions regarding what, if anything, can be done about the project's failings. And as for allowing 'globally banned' Wikipedia contributors to participate there, yes it does, and yes it damn well should, if such people can offer anything of merit to the discussion. Despite what advocates of ArbCom-as-a-fantasy-court might wish to believe, neither the 'community' nor ArbCom has any mandate that extends beyond Wikipedia, and nobody in this project has any right whatsoever to tell anyone who they can or cannot participate in discussions with. Or what they discuss. Which may on occasion involve such things as CoI editing by Wikipedia contributors, and the evident reluctance of the 'community' to do anything about it when said contributors have been around long enough to win over allies. As CoI issues go, the one being discussed here is probably on the minor side of things, compared to some of the more blatant examples discussed on Wikipediocracy, but in my opinion it merited discussion there. And merits discussion here too. Discussion of the actual issue, without attempts to stifle it through vague assertions regarding 'proxying' and attempts to otherwise muddy the waters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like it's in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO to actually address the issues that we become aware of, and not ignore them because the manner in which they were brought to our attention were contrary to our ideals. Hell, it was Reddit which pointed out that Scots Wikipedia was entirely gibberish. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    As someone who is new too, you know a lot about Wikipedia. Don't revert my edits just like that. My content is well-referenced and states the facts. What do you mean by in less than two hours? Anyone can work on a preview without saving and publish when required. All of my edits are referenced. As for the IP, I can use whatever IP address I want. I am not shackled to one IP address. Using multiple IP address is not allowed only when against the policies.
    Also, the noticeboard says to first resolve the issue directly with the editor. I don't have a COI involved. I have tried my best to provide references in support to my edits. Now, if the facts are negative, then I don't know what to do. If there is a reference proving my point, then there shouldn't be any problem.
    Those IP addresses are not mine either. I think @Adam.Sudo: is being paid by one of the subjects to defend the negative publicity and the IP addresses could be connected to Adam.Sudo. The account also recently became live as someone activated a sleepingcell. Please look into this. Thanks! Centrereded (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't help but notice that the content Centrereded has been adding uses “ and ” rather than Wikipedia's native quotation marks ("). This suggests to me that they are copying and pasting the content from somewhere else rather than typing it. Mlb96 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, you should help yourself about that. I am not saying you are wrong, but keyboards vary around the world. --SVTCobra 06:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Hondor

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Auriens

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

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

    2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff

    This is not a COIN problem. Consider the dispute resolution noticeboard for mediation or the NPOV noticeboard. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 20:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

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

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

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

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

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

    I am NOT a member of WMUK & haven't been for several years! Please don't spread lies. I haven't bothered to read the rest of the post. I don't see how recording a change of chair is promotional. Lucy Crompton-Reid's COI is declared in her edit summary, on the article talk page, & on her user page. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod, accusing others of spreading lies is a little much, as you have a "This user is a member of Wikimedia UK" userbox on your page. Are you aware that your edit restored much more material than a chair change and removed a summary of controversies the organization has been involved in? Firefangledfeathers 05:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So I did! Now removed. These were the three changes I restored - & I think I did miss the changes of paras lower down. I'm fine with "controversies" stuff being returned, but you should not revert to restore a chair and trustees who have been gone for some time. Johnbod (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It says in the Wikimedia UK that they had a governance problem in 2013, that was checked by an auditor. It states in the report, trustees' conflicts of interest were poorly managed. Seems they haven't learned in the past seven years. scope_creepTalk 19:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "a governance problem" is probably the understatement of the year - there is, and I say this with all due respect and entirely mindful of "comment on content, not editors", a serious competence issue at WMUK. Least of all are these ill-advised edits. Perhaps WMUK should take a step back from editing their own articles and instead focus on upgrading their MediaWiki installation to something that isn't EOL and vulnerable. sigh. ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 20:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the new content is unobjectionable, but I agree that part of it is overly promotional. Removal of criticism is particularly concerning. I think Johnbod's description of the edits as "just updates to basic info" is overly simplistic, and I'd recommend a self-revert and some more talk page discussion. Firefangledfeathers 19:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interests of transparency I have reverted Johnbod's edit as promotional and POV. Considering I would have done so for any other organization where a INVOLVED account appears to be adding promotional material I see no reason not to do so here. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 20:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with the revert. Even aside from any COI concerns, language like create changes in policy and practice that enable open knowledge to flourish is LinkedIn prose that does not belong in an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Disclaimer as a Paddy who would rather spend an eternity in hell than associate with WMUK, but I am friendly with Johnbod, who has had nothing to do with the assoc in 10 years)....the revert seemed in good faith to me...ie as said above the first series of changes were factual, but sneekingly, those lower down were problematic. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer inspection of the article's history shows some interesting reverts, such as this from 2015 by Pigsonthewing ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 21:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • If it had happened on a page on my watchlist and I noticed I would have reverted such blatant promotion and whitewashing. Questions about COI are certainly in order and I would say that questions about WP:COMPETENCE are also in order given the circumstances. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's absolutely egregious that that edit was marked as "minor" as well... AlexEng(TALK) 21:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @AlexEng: There were three edits and that just shows the edit summary for the last one: [10] which was indeed minor. SmartSE (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense. AlexEng(TALK) 22:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is rather disappointing behavior, and if it had been done by a non-WMF organization we would probably be handing out COI warnings or pblocks without a second thought. Everyone here should have known better (or, if they geniunely did not know better, that is a deeply concerning problem with a WMF affiliate). So, WMUK folks, we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. The easy way is you acknowledging the problem and voluntarily agreeing to behave like normal COI editors (requesting any potentially-contetious changes on talk pages, discussing on talk pages if any edits are challenged, not writing awful LinkedIn blurbs about "vision"). The hard way is the same but enforced via partial blocks. Again: deeply disappointing. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 22:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The initial edits appear to be a case of an inexperienced editor running into our COI policies, and have been appropriately reverted. That is how it should be handled for any organization adding promotional material. One good-faith COI mistake does not merit an immediate block (although I am less familiar with usual practice on partial blocks). Of course, this summary puts aside that the editor in question is the WMUK Chief Executive, which leads to the question that I think this report raises and should be considered explicitly: should we treat this matter with special interest because it relates to an WMF-affiliate? As it stands, I don't think this is necessary. The promotional edits have been reverted, and the potentially non-notable bio has been sent to AfD. WMUK employees should adhere to our COI policies as should any other editors, and if there are issues with WMUK governance I am not sure what can be done about it here. CMD (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd essentially concur with CMD, initial edits poor example of how to edit own organisation, concentrating on lead section with content not in the body, more like a newbie edit, despite what was put on the talk page. But was this discussed enough before raising the COIN? Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, it's Lucy here. I'm really sorry to have caused these issues. Several trustees in the past week have mentioned the factual inaccuracies on the Wikimedia UK page and in the interests of expediency (and, I think, for the first time in six years) I edited the page myself. I removed the controversies from the summary as they were over 8 years ago and didn't feel like the most relevant content for that section - however I can see that I overstepped the mark there and understand why they have been reverted. I'm very sorry that I didn't uphold community standards and have caused these concerns. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the inquisition, but along with admitted the error she also appears to have suggested that the error was the result of their being used as a WP:meatpuppet (that is assuming that any of the board members in question are also wikipedia editors). I don’t believe that we generally allow that sort of covert off-wiki coordination between editors, even of the “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" variety. If they were just a corporate flunky and they said “my bosses who are wikipedia editors told me to do X” I would be asking what their bosses edited under and then talking to those editors. I fail to see how its any different just because they’re Wiki family. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK)! Please keep in mind that coordinated editing should be avoided. Also just to be clear experience doesn’t matter at all in this situation, if they’re a wikipedia editor with one edit or one million its still a serious issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Monisha Shah

    • Although my username is included in the list at the top of this discussion I have never edited the Wikimedia UK article. My inclusion seems to be an attempt to establish a pattern which I do not recognise. It was included in relation the article Monisha Shah which I created. In my opinion a clearly notable contributor to many public sector and charitable bodies before she took up a role at Wikimedia UK.— Rod talk 15:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      ...who you personally know and work with as fellow WMUK trustee. Do you not see why others might doubt your judgement of her notability? Why did you decide to ignore WP:COISELF and write an article about her yourself, directly in mainspace? Unlike Lucy, you cannot claim inexperience. – Joe (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Rod the bigger problem with your edits is WP:BLP and WP:OR, even if you didn’t have a COI the page you created for Monisha Shah would be an issue. You’re trying to use opinion pieces, blog posts, and primary sources to pad a BLP which shouldn’t exist in the first place. You used meeting minutes [11] to source information about the subject’s brother, another BLP. You tried to use an opinion piece in a blog [12] for a wikivoice statement. I can go on if you really need more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      While I believe subject is worthy of an article (respecting other opinions disagreeing) any I am of the opinion this should indeed have gone via AfC if Rodw created it. NPP might have picked up, at least on a good day, but I believe Rodw has autopatrolled [13]. Hopefully just a failure to think and acceptance of a TROUT sufficient. That my opinon anyway. I guess unlikely to make that mistake again so draw a line and move on. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mustafa Al-Kadhimi

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

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

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

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

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

    Regarding the image, I changed it to a very recent (and I think not unflattering) image. I also informed Khattab (the not-yet blocked one) of how to contact C:Commons:VRT to verify permission via e-mail for uploads. I do not think that these accounts have been interacted with in an understanding and constructive manner before bringing them here. It is not rare to encounter real representatives. --SVTCobra 04:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't bring it here to shame him in any sense, just felt someone should take a look. I'm hardly an expert in outreach to government representatives, and he has been blocked on multiple accounts even before this, apparently. (The multiple AFC attempts about himself don't help either). BlackholeWA (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User is now apparently multiblocked for sockpuppeting and paid editing. Unsure if he was a spokesperson for the PM or not? Some things don't add up. BlackholeWA (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Albert Bryan (politician)

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

    I rolled it back to just after Drmies rolled it all back last time. Some semi-protection probably wouldn't hurt at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I dropped a block or two. Let's semi-protect this if they disagree and find a different range to work from. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Sluka

    Article deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

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

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

    Special:Contributions/Jaiden4

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

    So why have I not gone to ANI?

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

    I have reported this person at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kidhackr; seems like a pretty obvious sockpuppet to me. Also requested speedy deletion. I think you were right to take a more kind approach, I just happen to know that this person has done the same things many times before with very similar usernames. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jochem van Hees I'm grateful. We learn our "favourite" sock farms as time goes by FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Galaxy Group of Companies

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

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

    John DeLorean

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

    Given the mediocre sourcing for the content, I'd say that it was highly questionable that the John Delorean biography should say anything about this supposed 'illegitimate son' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fairly significant given the ongoing lawsuit but don't really have a horse in this race, I just want the COI editing out of it if it does exist. Rusalkii (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A biography of John DeLorean need not concern itself with lawsuits over possible trademark infringements occurring many years after his death. And I think you can be fairly certain that should this lawsuit come to court, they will consider anything regarding illegitimate descent to be entirely irrelevant to the case. Which leaves Wikipedia with nothing beyond the unverified claims of a single individual who appears have convinced nobody of anything much, and who seems to be using tabloid publicity regarding the claims as a means to market a vehicle of questionable merit. I can't think of any good reason why Wikipedia should assist him in this endeavour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chanakya Netha

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

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

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

    Robert Corich

    Moved to WP:ANI

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

    Florine Stettheimer

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

    Zeena Schreck

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

    There is no reason to believe that DiDoo1 is Zeena Schreck, given that all DiDoo1 is doing is ensure that the article in question complies with Wikipedia policy: See WP:BLPNAME, which explains that we do not normally include names of non-notable relatives of article subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are actually good reasons to think that there is a COI here, DiD001 has been consistently editing Zeena Shreck and few other articles since 2013, but I agree that the removal isn't an issue per BLPNAME. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, AndyTheGrump, however, Didoo1's reasoning is not that the child isn't notable, but that the child isn't Zeena's child. Not only is that not factual but it a personal reasoning, leading one to conclude COI. And like Hemiauchenia said, this user has been consistently editing Zeena's page as well as pages related to Zeena Schreck since the user's membership in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsidedownVal (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We certainly aren't going to include mention of this individual in the article on the say-so of a random contributor, who claims to be basing it on 'information that is not publicly known'. And please read WP:BLP - some of the things you have written above should probably be redacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Val, I was not trying to insinuate you have a conflict of interest through knowing any of them. I was just saying, and I think your above statement reflects the same, that you are keenly interested in the topic and perhaps "know" more than what is published in reliable sources. Just look at some of the allegations you are making in the initial submission here. Attempted murder? That is a heavy allegation. I haven't the time to read all your links, but could you point to the one that verifies that? --SVTCobra 04:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that conclusion is formed from this article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at least it seems Stanton is trying/has tried to become a public figure. However, I do question if he is a reliable narrator of his own life. Creating mythology seems pervasive in this tale. --SVTCobra 01:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and Haaretz

    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": [14]. 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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The alternative being that Wikipedians will be able to restrict critical sources? François Robere (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    François Robere, to clarify: I do not think there is a conflict of interest here. Firefangledfeathers 06:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @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,[15] and Piotrus replied.[16] I believe this makes him as much a "subject" here as an "editor", and letting him to edit the BLP and related articles[17] 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)[reply]
    WP:RSN Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Oh, as if that makes this any better? Really? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Oh jeez, not this again. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    There is the Christian Davies source (in May 2019) [18] 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 [19] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Editor names weren’t mentioned. See Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#RFC: Warsaw concentration camp theory. starship.paint (exalt) 02:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        @Levivich - You claimed writing 1000 times that nobody says the article was deliberately created as a hoax.[20]. 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 [21]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Nope, that's a good summary. Volunteer Marek 03:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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.[30][31][32][33][34][35] The editors should avoid editing and voting on both. François Robere (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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" ([36]). 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    WP:DFTT. Volunteer Marek 18:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Pabsoluterince :-) thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      @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[37]).. 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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 bannedOoOoOoOoOoooo! 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      @GizzyCatBella: I counted them after you challenged what I presumed to be a pretty uncontroversial statement. AlexEng(TALK) 11:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Exactly - more about it can be seen here - [38] - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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: [39]. Please stop empowering him. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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. Zerotalk 11:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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. Zerotalk 11:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ^^ This is a sock puppet of indef banned user [40], 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)[reply]
    I don't see the WP:SPI case opened yet. Why the delay? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Don't be silly, of course Wikipedia will have articles about Wikipedia, just like Britannica has an article about Britannica [41]. 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)[reply]
    How many articles does Britannica have about itself? ~ cygnis insignis 17:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        Why do you think we need a reminder on how you composed that question Levivich? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

    *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)[reply]

    @Chumchum7: FWIW keep reading. Haaretz, Israel's paper of record.[1][2][3][4] 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)[reply]
    Not in this situation[42] and not the article based on the faked story[43] delivered to Haaretz by the globally banned actor. GizzyCatBella🍁 00:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    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 [44],[45] --> (Piotrus is in conflict of interest as his edits were thoroughly roasted by Haaretz). And .... here -->[46] - Conflict of interest editing undone The sock IP (used VPN connecting to Poland) was promptly blocked [47]. Another editor reverted the sock puppet with an edit summary not seeing the COI[48]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    References

    1. ^ Israel — Hebrew- and English-Language Media Guide Open Source Center (16 September 2008)
    2. ^ Levey, Gregory (21 August 2008). "Pushing right-wing American politics — in Israel". Salon. Retrieved 24 January 2014. In the past few months, Haaretz, Israel's paper of record, has run a series of articles expressing misgivings about outside influence.
    3. ^ Rosen, Brant (11 May 2010). "Alan Dershowitz and the Politics of Desperation". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 24 January 2014. Recent polling, alongside articles in both the New York Times and the Israeli paper of record, Ha'aretz, indicate that the American Jewish community no longer feels represented by our so-called representatives - if we ever did.
    4. ^ Gorenberg, Gershom (September 2002). "The Thin Green Line". Mother Jones. Retrieved 24 January 2014. In late January, the declaration ran as an ad in Ha'aretz, the national paper of record...

    Jonah Wittkamper

    user:Jwittkamper appears to be connected to Jonah Wittkamper, the subject of Jonah Wittkamper. User is an WP:SPA on the subject of Jonah Wittkamper and nonprofit organizations associated with Wittkamper. In more than seven years the user has made no edits that were not related to Wittkamper and the non profits he is associated with. It has been almost three months since the user was informed of COI concerns, but has not responded, so I'm opening this COIN.

    As an aside, there seems to be a significant history of suspicious editing on this cluster of articles, with several SPA named accounts and IPs, promotional usernames, and at least one sock/suspected paid editor.

    Meters (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Soil Association

    In days gone by I would have asked my very good friend Jytdog to advise me on this, but alas ...

    DanMor806 works for SA in some capacity, recognises his COI and does not wish to edit the page, but asked for help on the talk page to bring the page a little more up to date. They have provided an initial suggestion to update the History section, and I have let the whole thing fall off my watchlist and promptly forgotten about it. I have also realised that I am so used to hostile true believers in something, that dealing with a co-operative person who is happy to be schooled and supported, is stretching my collegiate abilities - I think hope that wise heads here might have a look at the Talk page, and help guide me. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hundreds of RNA motif pages

    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Chris Lamb (software developer)

    Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Lamb_(software_developer)#Conflict_of_interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrezling (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As a brief summary, this original version was created by single purpose account GnuKidsOnTheBlock and moved by Lambyuk who declared that they are the subject of the article. At first glance, I'm seeing very little evidence of notability, so this is probably best resolved at WP:AFD but I need to research a little further. SmartSE (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And indeed, a million miles from meeting WP:BIO so I have boldly redirected to List of Debian project leaders#Chris_Lamb but can go to AFD if necessary. SmartSE (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1058088170"