From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and Haaretz

This has descended into personal attacks, if this discussion needs a proper close to assess the consensus then this should be sought at WP:RFCLOSE. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Re-close: There is a fairly clear consensus that editors that are directly covered by a presumtively reliable source, and Haaretz is that by established consensus, have a conflict of interest in editing material related to that coverage. This includes articles about whether or not it was a hoax. They may challenge the inclusion of such material, and if such discussion is disruptive or tendentious that may be dealt with in the usual manner. But removing an article that covers their actions in our article space is a COI by the consensus of this discussion. Nableezy 05:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Further explanation of close: The arguments for no COI generally fell in to three camps, the slippery slope that editors can be restricted from topics by sources critical of them, that this was just a re-hashing of Icewhiz's claims and as such should be ignored, and the article is not true (there was one more substantive no COI argument, and I'll get to that one). The slippery slope bit I didn't reject as weak, but weaker in regards to the specific topic of editing about this source. That would be a strong argument against a COI for the topic of the Warsaw concentration camp, and I did not find that there is any COI there. But until we start to slip down that slope, I dont find that convincing on the topic of a COI with regard to the editing related to the Haaretz article itself. That argument would have been convincing if somebody claimed you had a COI with the article Warsaw concentration camp, or the wider Holocaust in Poland topic, but on coverage of your edits itself I did not find it to be all that strong. The argument based on the source is Icewhiz I placed almost no weight on at all. I dont think I need to establish my bona fides for being not a Friend of Icewhiz here, but you can count his socks agitating for a ban against me here if you need that established. But the argument that a presumptively reliable source is ruled out because its source is somehow compromised is a non-starter in my view. Anonymous sources invariably have an agenda, their own motive for wanting to see a story published. We depend on the source to verify the claims and only print what they can substantiate independently. So I mostly tossed out the "this is just Icewhiz" votes on that basis. The argument on but the article is not accurate was likewise weak. I agree that there are claims in the article that it would be a poor source for, eg 100+ Polish editors (how on Earth would they know? Did they count userboxes? Have CU data?). But in general we operate on verifiability, not truth, and if one reliable source is wrong the way to challenge it is to demonstrate that other reliable sources dispute what it says. That left me discounting, mostly, the but it's wrong argument. The argument by Aquillion was in my view the strongest. That based on your editing you would be removing the source even if you were not mentioned, making it so that is not your motivation. That is you are objecting to the source not based on any conflict, but based on our other policies of NPOV and V. That however was not enough to overcome what I thought the supporters said regarding the removal of a source that explicitly mentions you and your edits. There were a number of "No COI" and "Yes COI" votes without any real explanation that I factored in slightly, but in my view the stronger arguments were very much on one side of the ledger here. I dont find any consensus that there is COI with Grabowski, or with editing the topic area as a whole. nableezy - 21:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

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

On Oct. 4, 2019, Omer Benjakob of Haaretz, Israel's paper of record, published a story about Wikipedia's coverage of Poland and the Holocaust, including what Benjakob called Wikipedia's longest-running hoax, related to content at the article " Warsaw concentration camp": [1]. In this article, Benjakob interviewed User:Icewhiz and User:Piotrus, among others, and wrote, in the newspaper's voice, content that was critical of Icewhiz, Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and others, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. Here are some relevant excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

  • About Piotrus:

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

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

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

  • About Volunteer Marek:

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

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

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

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

  • And a prediction:

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

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

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

100% no. The inescapable consequence of such a conclusion is that sources will be able to restrict the editing of critical Wikipedians. Firefangledfeathers 00:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
However, the restriction wouldn’t even be on that topic area (Eastern Europe, for example), it would just be on content presented by that very source. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The alternative being that Wikipedians will be able to restrict critical sources? François Robere ( talk) 12:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Stop it with the false dichotomy FR. The question isn't "either COI or we ban critical sources". As Firefangledfeathers points out, this simply isn't "Conflict of Interest". Volunteer Marek 16:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
When you reply to my messages, what exactly is going through your mind?
  • "Stop it" makes no sense, since I only made this argument once. Also, you're not the boss of me, mister.
  • Firefangledfeathers's comment is about one sentence long, and nowhere in it does he say this isn't a COI. François Robere ( talk) 22:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Francois Robere: Firefangledfeathers (...) nowhere in it does he say this isn't a COI.
Firefangledfeather's: 100% no
It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who will sit there and gaslight you when the evidence is sitting right there in plain view, just few lines above. THIS right here is perfect example why this sorry episode has dragged on for so long on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 22:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
And what was the question - from the OP's original post, if you will? Because I can't see that he asked this anywhere, and I'd loath to put words into FFF's mouth beyond his obvious disagreement with the result. François Robere ( talk) 22:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
OMG. Seriously, someone want to explain to me how to have a constructive conversation with someone who will sit there and insist white is black and black is white when everyone can see the damn colors? Volunteer Marek 23:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
François Robere, to clarify: I do not think there is a conflict of interest here. Firefangledfeathers 06:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Firefangledfeathers: Thank you for clarifying. Back to my original question: you fear that sources could restrict critical editors, but what about editors restricting critical sources? Jan Grabowski is a well known " new school" historian, who was one of the sources for the Haaretz piece. After the piece was published, Grabowski wrote a critical article for Gazeta Wyborcza, [2] and Piotrus replied. [3] I believe this makes him as much a "subject" here as an "editor", and letting him to edit the BLP and related articles [4] gives him, in affect, power over the BLP. To be clear, I'm not saying Piotrus abused that power (though I certainly wouldn't have made that particular edit), but Policy is here to prevent just that. François Robere ( talk) 11:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSN Selfstudier ( talk) 14:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. FYI, the ping you added to the top of your comment didn't work, as successful pings need a new line addition and a signature. The edit summary ping worked just fine.
I'd have to review the Grabowski situation more to have an informed opinion, and I am hindered by limited Polish (understatement). I feel the community has its hands full with the Haaretz issue, and would suggest starting a separate discussion after this one.
About your original question: I don't think critical coverage of editors generates a COI. Analogously, journalists who are criticized by politicians are not pulled from the bull pen. I would feel differently if the editors here were removing content that names them, but I think we all agree that content would be inappropriate. Firefangledfeathers 17:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Firefangledfeathers: It's interesting you wrote journalists who are criticized by politicians are not pulled from the bull pen because "pulling from the bull pen" is exactly what Piotrus and VM are doing to Haaretz: they're removing Haaretz from Wikipedia articles. It's the reverse of your analogy: if a newspaper criticized a politician, can the politician pull the newspaper from the bull pen? I'd say no. Same here. Levivich 17:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Removing sources from Wikipedia is common practice. If done erroneously or in bad faith, we have existing procedures to fix the issue. Firefangledfeathers 18:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
COIN is one of those existing procedures, eh? :-) The issuing of press credentials is also common practice. And actually, removing sources from multiple articles, and then after they've been reinstated and stable with consensus for two years, coming back and removing them all again, is not common practice on Wikipedia. Anyway, so your answer is "yes": if a newspaper criticizes a politician, it's OK for the politician to exclude the newspaper? I disagree with that. Levivich 18:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
My answer would be no. It's happened in my country somewhat frequently in recent history, and I condemn it every time. Sometimes a media outlet is pulled from a press pool for reasons besides critical coverage, though others question if those reasons are the true ones. Firefangledfeathers 18:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Firefangledfeathers: With that I agree, but you will agree that in such cases the fact of the criticism is often common knowledge, and the newsroom is able to review the journalist's work and set limitations as needed, so as to prevent retaliation and minimize bias. What mechanisms have we for the same, other than this very thread? François Robere ( talk) 20:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I can understand if Piotrus and Volunteer Marek view this thread as a sort of attack, but I'm uninvolved and think it's ok to reflect on whether their editing behavior is reasonable. I find that in this case it is. The mechanism appears to be working well. I would be disheartened to see this end with a finding that the two editors do have COI in this area, and I particularly worry about the precedent it might establish. Firefangledfeathers 21:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Firefangledfeathers: Reasonable editing does not exclude you from having a COI ( WP:COINOTBIAS). I haven't seen anyone saying that we should exclude them from the area, just any content surrounding the particular source. The article written about you can't remove you from editing in a topic in general, just from engaging in that article specifically. The determination of the dueness of the source can be entrused with other editors not named. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 02:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
You've pinged me but might be responding to someone else's argument. I wouldn't say my points have relied on reasonableness as a defense against COI. Firefangledfeathers 03:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Firefangledfeathers: You're right, I misinterpreted that as relevant to the conversation. Do your points depend on the potential to establish a precedent that excludes the editors from editing the area? If so, could you point out a single person arguing for their exclusion from any topic areas? Or is that irrelevant musings too? Pabsoluterince ( talk) 06:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
No. These Wikipedians were directly involved in this dispute before Haaretz wrote a story on it. Why are we arguing about this story, who we know was fed to this journalist by a globally banned user? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Hemiauchenia: - at the time of this article’s publishing, Icewhiz wasn’t globally banned yet, neither was he indefinitely blocked. He was only topic banned. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, as if that makes this any better? Really? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Why does it matter that the main source was a banned editor? The substantive claims were vetted by the journalist, two professors, and published by the paper. They're also backed by Wikipedia's records (diffs) of the articles and edits mentioned. I haven't actually tried to do this, but should there be doubts about the veracity of what Haaretz is reporting, I think I could provide a diff for any of the specific claims regarding edits to Wikipedia articles. But bottom line, if what the newspaper is reporting is true, who cares if one of the sources is a banned editor? Levivich 02:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
In my view, we shouldn’t use events that happened in 2020 to argue against content written in 2019 by someone else. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Why does it matter that the main source was a banned editor? Um, this should be kind of obvious, but since apparently you have trouble getting it, the reason is that the "information" that Icewhiz provided to Benjakob was part of his broader harrasment, doxxing and threats campaign that he was waging at the time. Yes, it matters.
The substantive claims were vetted by the journalist, two professors, and published by the paper. This is completely disingenuous. No one has argued about the "substantive claims" made by "two professors". Yes, there's two professors cited in the article FOR OTHER info. There hasn't been arguments about that OTHER info because.... well because the claims made by these two professors about Wikipedia are so blatantly absurd that not even Icewhiz or his friends tried to put them into Wikipedia. One claims that there are "hundreds" of Polish editors secretly working for the Polish government editing Wikipedia (there's actually like 3 or 4 actually active Polish editors). The other ones claims that "Wikipedia article changed before (her) eyes" (ummm.... yes, that's how Wikipedia works). The "substantive claims" at the source of this controversy is all the crap that came from Icewhiz, not some unrelated "two professors" stuff. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean, if you want to try and insert the "fact" that there are "hundreds of editors working for Polish government" somewhere into Wikipedia, we can argue about that too... Volunteer Marek 17:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems like a pretty clear cut case of Conflict of Interest, and these editors should not be removing that material from the article. Inf-in MD ( talk) 00:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh jeez, not this again. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems like a conflict of interest but I would offer a mode of recourse, that these editors are allowed to start RFCs on this content, to solicit the will of the community, without these editors voting or arguing themselves. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous, and the account presented above badly misrepresents the case (regarding, in particular, the claim that "Benjakob... wrote, in the newspaper's voice, content that was critical of Icewhiz, Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and others" - no, the account was quite sympathetic to Icewhiz, for reasons one can speculate on but that may have something to do with the fact that Icewhiz, Haaretz and the journalist who wrote the piece are all Israeli, and the boogeyman of "Polish nationalism" that Icewhiz ranted about is a popular straw man in Israeli politics, not helped by the fact that the current Polish government is quite nationalistic indeed and an easy scapegoat for all evils in the world...). Anyway, let's start by remembering who is User:Icewhiz: an indef banned harasser and manipulator, who tried outing people, harassing their families, etc. A crown jewel in his campaign of harassment was duping the said Haaretz journalist into taking his side against "Evil Polish nationalists", a fictional group whose existence Icewhiz was campaigning against; Icewhiz claims were reviewed and discarded by ArbCom (who topic banned him instead, shortly before learning of his harassment campaign which earned him a WMF site ban). In the Haaretz article, the journalist admited that Icewhiz got himself banned, strongly suggesting in the editors voice this was a mistake on ArbCom's part (reporting on Icewhiz's misdeeds as "alleged", but on the "evil Polish editors", without such a qualification) and that he is publishing his story as a call to arms against this evil group responsible for getting the slightly overzealous Israeli activist banned. It's a very sad piece of journalism (build on a kernel of truth about an error on Wikipedia that persisted for some time, but ABFed to the extreme). I was interviewed for the Haaretz piece, lied to by the journalist who before the interview promised that I'll be able to review the final article, then said this impossible due to changing deadlines, subsequently badly misquoted, and Haaretz and the journalist ignored my response letter. Removing this sad excuse for journalism should be in everyone's interest, lest we allow fake news on Wikipedia. Anyway, relevant quotes about Icewhiz include a sympathetic explanation of Icewhiz's ban as a result of the "evil Polish gang" gaining control of Wikipedia's community:

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

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

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

Seriously, what do you want this to be used as a source for? This is not a COI issue, this is a RS/NPOV one, and the community needs to declare this said piece of writing not fit for any use on Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Wait wait wait! Lemme emphasize what this article actually claims. Here it is again: Poles on Wikipedia benefit from an unholy alliance with editors affiliated with the American left I mean... bwahahahahaha. "Unholy alliance"... what??? With... "the American left"???? Hahahahahha. Seriously, this is this great reliable impeccable source that some people are defending. And yes, this is straight from Icewhiz's mouth. He made similar idiotic claims on reddit and Wikipediocracy and his twitter account (the one that led to his ban). For some reason the author of the article repeated these verbatim. Volunteer Marek 17:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        Icewhiz may voice whatever opinions, but we don't cite them as fact, so I don't get the excitement about it. Do you see an opinion statement in the passage that you want to challenge, apart from "the Wikipedia's longest hoax", which is attributed? And anyway, we aren't speaking of Icewhiz here but of you. Don't deflect the discussion please. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 18:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Wait wait wait wait! It gets even better! In reality, only 12 Polish editors (out of more than 100) were banned from editing "more than 100" Polish editors? What? When? How? Wtf? I think at peak there MAY have been like 10 Polish editors active on English Wikipedia. And all 100 of these were supposed to be on this mailing list???? This is supposed to be the "vetting" and "fact checking" by "a journalist" we're being told about? And... TWELVE Polish editors got banned as part of the case? I was part of that case. There weren't twelve editors banned, Polish or not! I have no idea what crazy alternative universe this source pulled this out of. COI or not, Haaretz or not, the honest truth is that this is just super shoddy crap piece of journalism which didn't even do basic fact checking. Yes, we're talking Breitbart territory. Volunteer Marek 18:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The RS/NPOV issues, if there are any, can be addressed and resolved by the Wikipedia community. You have a personal COI in this matter, and thus can not directly participate. It is as simple as that. Inf-in MD ( talk) 01:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Did you manage to make the 500 edits in the past 3 months to get to participate in this discussion? Volunteer Marek 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not needed, COIN is not extended-protected, secondly, yes, if 500/30 really matters to you regardless, they have just over 2,000 edits starting from July this year. You missed. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 19:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, see, the part that concerns me is the “starting from July this year” + the nature of their edit history. Volunteer Marek 21:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The fact that a hoax existed on WP for a rather long time, documentable to Haaretz, is completely valid, but there is zero need to mention any editor names in the mainspace article. The presentation should be sufficiently concise to explain why it was an issue for us, but should avoid all the behind-the-scenes AN/ANI/Arbcom activity aimed at specific editors. The Hareetz piece captures those events just fine. -- Masem ( t) 02:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The issue is entirely whether we can cite the article at all. No one has even suggested mentioning user names in main space. The COI is, in my opinion, more than the editors named above are trying to remove this coverage pretty much everywhere, even though this is precisely the behavior the article is discussing them for. The idea that a journalist was “fed a story by Icewhiz” is the canard that’s been cooked up as cover to remove coverage unflattering to their POV.— Ermenrich ( talk) 02:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
There should be no issue citing Hareetz, they have a well documented history of fact checking (and it would be very hard to believe they took the story from the banned editor without any attempts to corroborate the facts, which is clear from that article itself) - This isn't like Breitbart News where we have another banned editor that is actually writing stories for them and those show clear bias. Whether this is a COI for the two editors, it's an edge case, but they seem to be clearly acting against consensus to keep. I don't calling for COI is a necessary solution, this is behavior that is totally out of place for experienced editors, and that they are named in the article should be something that they should be playing it far more caution. (it would be different if this article was outing their real names or other info, they would have every right to remove it). -- Masem ( t) 03:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Masem: they have a well documented history of fact checking Fact... checking... like the idea that there are "hundreds of Polish editors" working for the Polish government on Wikipedia? Or maybe the fact checking that there exists a ... ahem ... an "unholy alliance" (sic) between "Polish nationalists" and "American leftists" on Wikipedia (I mean, J F C!) Or fact checking that there was 100 Polish users on some mailing list but "only" 12 of them got banned? I'm sorry but the whole article is just one absurd fantasy piled on top of another. Let's be explicit here - oftentimes outside of Wikipedia, even people who claim to be "experts" on Wikipedia, have not an iota of a clue of how it works. Volunteer Marek 18:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
There's no consensus to keep though. And yes, this is actually very much like Breitbart News. Your reputation is only as good as the things you publish. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
But consider that 1) we as editors know (now) there was misinformation in the article for many many years and 2) the writeups on the appropriate pages are extremely high-level and neutral to not point fingers or claim who was trying to add or who was trying to removed. Ignoring all the finger-pointing that Hareetz does, it is reporting correctly on this issue (including affirmation from professors that know the truth of the past that it was misinformation). Yes, Haaretz calls this a "hoax" but that's easily dealt with by staying to high level coverage. Hence, for that surface level discussion of the misinformation, its fine. But if we dug any lower in our description, I would completely agree that Hareetz then becomes a poor source for that info, and as best as I've seen, they're the only RS that digs that deep into this. We definitely should not take up the narrative that Hareetz pushes that this was a group of Polish editors trying to force this information. We don't have to explain ourselves or anything like that, just that it was there for 15 years, propagated to the other language Wikipedias and external sources, and subsequently removed when discovered. -- Masem ( t) 19:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, @ Masem: - I always respect your input in these discussions - but now step back and take a comprehensive view. You acknowledge that Haaretz article would be "a poor source for that info" (your words)
So, if someone wanted to put in the idea that "there's an unholy alliance of Polish editors and American leftists on Wikipedia" into some article, the Haaretz source would be unreliable for that. 100% agree.
If someone wanted to put in the idea that "12 Polish editors out of a 100 got banned in the EEML case" into some article, the Haaretz source would be unreliable for that. 100% agree.
If someone wanted to put in the idea that "there are hundreds of Polish editors working for the Polish government on English Wikipedia", the Haaretz source would be unrelable for that. 100% agree.
So obviously the Haaretz article makes many claims which are so absurd that no one could argue with a straight face that it's a reliable source for THOSE claims.
Ok. So why is it reliable for other stuff? Which parts of the Haaretz article are unreliable and which are reliable? How you gonna pick and choose? And then, the whole thing is really UNDUE, so why not just drop it? (also, this has nothing to do with any "COI") (Volunteer Marek - didn't sign) 22:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's take a case where there was some misinformation or hoax with something other than Wikipedia, with a similar situation on how it was learned about in mass media - but for sake of argument, lets say it was still related to WWII issues like this one. In this case, we have no idea what happened exactly behind the scenes, and as Hareetz is generally a reliable source, we'd have to take their word at it -- but we also are aware Haaretz has a pro-Israeli slant, so per WP:NPOV (more specifically WP:YESPOV, we'd want to stick to the parts of the story that aren't pointing blame, but simply reporting the fundamental facts. This capabilities is not OR, as it is built into NPOV. Now in this case, we actually know what happened (and more than what Haaretz reported) to be confident that their factual presentation of materials is correct, but everything else atop is pushing the YESPOV aspect. So in the same situation we know how to extract the most relevant material. Is it UNDUE? A line or two in a few places is not UNDUE.
Also, I did support the idea this is not so much COI (see above) but simply more an edit warring/behavior issue against what seemed to be established consensus. As I mentioned, if this scenario was COI, that would also prevent users incorporating positive coverage of Wikipedia where appropriate if they were mentioned (such as Doc James). -- Masem ( t) 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, an obvious solution then would be to find ANOTHER source, which isn't so deeply compromised both by its origin (indef banned user) and by the heaps of plainly ridiculous claims about other things, and use that to source the basic info you refer to. I actually wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as it was truly a different source and not just a reprint/derivative of the Haaretz article. Except.... afaik, no such other source exists. Which brings us back to the fact that it's UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 04:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
There is the Christian Davies source (in May 2019) [5] that (going by Hareetz's report) was the catalyst to review if the article was perpetuating the misinformation. It mentions "Wikipedia entries were changed" to align with this. One could also use this 2021 Hareetz article [6] which talks about the Wikipedia problem in light of having Holocaust information online and avoiding misinformation at both Wikipedia and Facebook. That article avoids any name-calling in the Wikipedia problem, outside of affirming it came from this "Polocaust" (Davies' term). Now I would agree that we don't need prose-space in the non-Wikipedia related articles - I suggested before just a footnote to explain that Wikipedia had this information until it was disproven per Davies in May 2019 - and only a brief summary on the pages documenting WP's well-known errors. The fact it was pointed out by a banned editor doesn't change the fact we had that error for 15 years. -- Masem ( t) 05:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
How is this an 'edge case'? They are editing an article about a topic with which they have a direct personal involvement. WP:COI:"This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests" Inf-in MD ( talk) 04:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
At least based on what has been added and removed in this, the content does not mention or refer to these editors at all. If we were naming specific editors in the text, that would be a more clear COI issue. I still argree that the removal by these two editors is inappropriate, either via edit warring or refuting what is normally an RS simply because a banned editor pointed the situation out to Haaretz. If we were to call this COI, then I would be worried about articles that praise WP for something would become also reviewed under the same light (eg James Heilman/Doc James would be accused of COI if they discussed articles that praised WP's handling of COVID misinformation. The actions of the two here are actionable under other metrics. -- Masem ( t) 06:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
a topic with which they have a direct personal involvement This is false. There was no "direct personal involvement". Please stop posting things which are just plainly not true. Volunteer Marek 23:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Masem, I agree with you you wrote above, but it is actually not responsive to the question asked here, which is if those editors can actively participate in the editing of the section about them. Inf-in MD ( talk) 02:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
if those editors can actively participate in the editing of the section about them Gee brand new account, there's a section about ME somewhere on Wikipedia? Can you show me where? I would like to know, especially if I have somehow edited it. Hint: there's no section about me on Wikipedia. This is just a dishonest misrepresentation of the situation. Volunteer Marek 18:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Editor names weren’t mentioned. See Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#RFC: Warsaw concentration camp theory. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Piotrus and Marek are removing references to an article that mentions them in a clear case of COI. Regardless of the issues surrounding the sources, they should not be involved in any editing of the information. If you think there are reasons why the Hareetz piece shouldn't be included, obtain community consensus before making edits. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 02:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Imagine a reputable newspaper publishes an interview with a convicted criminal, where the said criminal complains about rigged system, conspiracy of others etc. Would that make the newspaper in question an unreliable source? No. Would that specific article make for a good source for wikipedia though? Also no. That's what we are dealing with here. Icewhiz got a life sentence in wikiworld. It is as simple as that. Move on to something more constructive.-- Darwinek ( talk) 02:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    • In the real world, convicted criminals testify all the time, and if what they say is true, we don't ignore it. There was in fact a hoax for 15 years. Levivich 02:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      @ Levivich - You claimed writing 1000 times that nobody says the article was deliberately created as a hoax. [7]. Now you say --> there was in fact a hoax for 15 years. Here is the definition of the word Hoax - an act intended to trick or dupe [8]
      Make up your mind Levivich, hoax = intended act to trick. So who added the hoax content? Name those editors. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      Whether that article was a "hoax" or "fringe theory" or whatever is actually irrelevant to THIS discussion. Here's the thing EVEN THE HAARETZ article, chuck full of Icewhiz BS as it is, doesn't claim the editors mentioned here had ANYTHING to do with it. So how can there be a COI regarding the issue of whether it was a hoax or not? This "COI" is just some made up baloney, an excuse, and Levivich and FR know it damn well. Volunteer Marek 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      You know the answer to this, because we discussed it extensively at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp. Here, Special:Diff/1054411531, on Nov 9, I wrote the details. TLDR: I WP:AGF the creator may not have known it was a hoax when he created it in 2004, but no later than 2006 he knew or should have known it was a hoax, when he made this edit: Special:Diff/45941464. Levivich 04:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      There is "must have known". Many people still don't know anythign about this case even today. There is zero evidence beyond the realm of likely doubt that anyone who added or restored this informationt to Wikipedia knew it was wrong. This was an error, and once a properly formatted talk discussion was held about it years later (by which time the original author was sadly deceased), nobody objected to this being removed. Trying to smear the reputation of an editor that cannot defend himself and who build Wikipedia a decade before you became involved in this project, one who got a number of articles to FA and who was highly active in the community, visiting Wikimania, worked for WMF, and is known under his real name, is apalling. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      This is not the place to discuss the reliability/ validity of the source or the intentions of the editors who added the sources. Reserve this conversation for obtaining consensus in other areas. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 10:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Piotrus and Marek should not be removing that Haaretz article from Wikipedia articles. There's nothing wrong with the Haaretz article; it's perfectly reasonable journalism, especially considering the hoax remained for 15 years. Furthermore, it doesn't mention either of those editors until two-thirds of the way down the nearly 6,000-word article. It doesn't give either of their real names except if they volunteered their name and permission to use to Haaretz. Lastly, it backs up its statements with links to diffs. I don't know how it could be more wiki-compliant. Neither Piotrus or Marek should remove it, and if necessary they should receive TBANs on the subject if they persist. Softlavender ( talk) 04:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry @ Softlavender: you seem to be arguing the opposite - that I (and Piotrus) don't have COI because we're not even mentioned in relation to the controversy this is actually about (the Warsaw concentration camp) and only in passing. This is correct. The article does not claim that either myself or Piotrus had anything to do with the Warsaw Concentration Camp article. Because we didn't. Even Icewhiz couldn't pull that level of BS off (he could only falsely insinuate it). Volunteer Marek 17:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Marek, you are indeed involved in perpetuating the hoax, as the article and its diffs reveal. The fact that you are trying to engage in sophistry in denying your COI in removing the article from Wikipedia shows a much deeper underlying problem, which is even worse and should probably be reported to a noticeboard if you persist. Softlavender ( talk) 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Marek, you are indeed involved in perpetuating the hoax, as the article and its diffs reveal User:Softlavender? Go screw yourself. I am nor have every perpetuated ANY hoax and have never been involved in any of it. There are no "diffs" that "reveal it". You. Are. Lying. About. Me. This is an extremely serious accusation, it is 100% false, and "go screw yourself" is about as polite of a response as can be made in that situation. Volunteer Marek 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        @ Softlavender - ??-involved in perpetuating the hoax-?? - which diffs reveal it? Post it here please.
        PS - Did you read the Haaretz article at all? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        The diffs are in the Haaretz article. Softlavender ( talk) 22:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        No they are NOT! Stop. Lying. Even that crappy Haaretz article does not say I had anything to do with that Warsaw Concentration article. Because I didn't. Did you even read the article you're relying on? This is 100% bullshit. Volunteer Marek 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        @ Softlavender - Please post it here, perpetrating a hoax is a heavy accusation - GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        You're perfectly capable of reading the Haaretz article yourself; the links are clearly identified there. Please don't waste my and the community's time by this endless dithering and bludgeoning. Softlavender ( talk) 23:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        • You're perfectly capable of reading the Haaretz article yourself; the links are clearly identified there No no no. Noooooooooooo. No, you don't get to do that. You don't get to lie about somebody like that and then when you get called out on your lie go "you can find the evidence yourself". No no no. You made the accusation, you provide the evidence. Where are the diffs? Where in that article (as crappy as it is) does it accuse me of "perpetuating a hoax". Strike your comments and stop lying about me. Volunteer Marek 23:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        I raised Special:Diff/284068613 in August at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Archive 2#warsaw. Levivich 22:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        @ Levivich and @ Softlavender - That's one edit from 2009 [9] followed by one more [10] also in 2009. Total 2 edits. The next one was on August 3/21 [11]. That's 4 months ago. Two years after Icewhiz's dishonest claims were published by Haaretz.
        Where is the involvement in perpetrating a hoax? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 23:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        Levivich is just dishonestly posting a diff hoping no one would look at it. Notice he doesn't even have the guts to say "here is the diff of VM perpetuating a hoax". Rather he says "I raised this" ... and provides a diff that shows nothing of the sort. What Levivich and Softlander are trying to pull here - make odious awful false accusations against other editors is some Icewhiz-level manipulation and lying. Volunteer Marek 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        @ Softlavender - I'm disappointed Softlavender. You accused an editor of perpetrating a hoax. When I asked you to provide evidence for that heavy claim, you told me to look for them myself [12]. It would be very helpful and appropriate if you removed that accusation or provided proof (you claim exists) that VM was involved in perpetrating a hoax. Could you do that for me, please? GizzyCatBella 🍁 23:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        Please read and quote what I wrote, not what yo think I wrote. Softlavender ( talk) 00:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
        • @ Softlavender: Here's what you wrote: you are indeed involved in perpetuating the hoax. GCB asked you to remove that false accusation. You then respond with "please read and quote what I wrote". Well. This is what you wrote. Stop trying to evade responsibility for the fact that you made a false and disgusting personal attack against another editor and now you don't even have the simple decency to remove it so you're obfuscating. Volunteer Marek 00:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
          @ Softlavender
          quote 1 ---> Marek, you are indeed involved in perpetuating the hoax.. [13]
          quote 2 ---> You're perfectly capable of reading the Haaretz article yourself.... Please don't waste my...time [14] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 00:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
          Exactly. Now please strike what you accused me of saying here and here and here, and re-word it with what I actually said. Softlavender ( talk) 01:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
          • User:Softlavender are you seriously claiming that you did NOT accuse me of perpetuating a hoax? Wth? Volunteer Marek 01:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
            Excuse me User:Softlavender? Are you claiming you didn’t say? Marek, you are indeed involved in perpetuating the hoax..? [15] and you didn’t tell me to read article (look for diff’s) myself [16]? Your message is obvious. Well, this is unreal, why you are choosing to take this route is beyond me... greatly disappointed - GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
            To repeat, that is exactly what I said. It is not what you accused me three times of saying, and you still haven't stricken and corrected those misstatements. Softlavender ( talk) 01:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The old perpetuating vs perpetrating. Regardless, the diffs provided in the article were, this and this. Both pertain to the Radziłów article and Volunteer Marek adding the same certain piece of information "Soviet-armed Jewish militiamen helped NKVD agents send Polish families into exile". These two edits are part of a a small disagreement between Icewhiz and VM in which Icewhiz removes the information, VM adds it back, Icewhiz removes it and writes why on the talk page, VM removes it, then adds it again realising that Icewhiz is correct. Over a time span of around an hour, two editors resolved the matter peacefully and agreed that the source didn't mention Radziłów. This is the shoddy evidence the article gives to the story that editors like VM are actively downplaying Polish violence against Jews – and in some cases are even accusing the Jews of violence against Poles. The diffs provided in the article don't even relate to Warsaw concentration camp and therefore really cannot be construed as pepetuating the hoax.

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

Nope, that's a good summary. Volunteer Marek 03:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount (also mentioned in the source) must refrain from editing the articles mentioning them. I absolutely agree with Softlavender's suggestion; though they may of course provide insights that could be valuable to the discussion, on the talk pages. The very suggestion that the editors may remove the stories simply because they disagree with it personally strikes me as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation and must stop immediately. (Plus the all-too-common claims of 500/30 exemptions as a licence to revert something more than 3 times is very suspect behaviour and is greatly concerning).
On a plus side, at least MyMoloboaccount stays away from the mess this topic has become (so far). I hope the other two editors follow them. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 11:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) (Edit: pinging MyMoloboaccount as they are mentioned in this post).
To explain myself: per definition provided on the COI page, WP:POTENTIALCOI says "A potential COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment but is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised.
Example: A business owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about that business, but they have no actual COI if they stay away from those pages". Substitute "business owner" with "user" and you have the situation here. Because neither of the users decided to stay away, they have COI, pretty much by definition. If the example is bad - reargue the example on the policy talk page.
Some people here have tried to say that taking the dispute off-wiki automatically strips us of any COI. (But more generally, allowing an editor like Icewhiz to manufacture a COI by going to a friendly press outlet and producing an interview which is then used as a source would effectively allow every high-profile individual to force individual editors off of pages related to them by engaging in, and then publicizing, one-sided disputes with editors.) The problem is, this is exactly the advice made to editors when we are dealing with WP:OR - get it published in a reliable source; plus, for whatever this argument is worth, this argument makes an assertion that the article was published precisely to make involved parties burdened with COI accusations. No one has evidence for that. I would believe more in revenge stories but simply to show editors as nationalist-minded editors who don't care about WP's integrity than to force them to shut up (which anyway doesn't seem to be working, judging by the volume and nature of the comments they are making).
By trying to say that users concerned should be given free hand at deleting content they believe to be portraying them in bad light (rightfully or not) you make the assumption that the RS imprimatur means little (and that indeed seemed to be the argument of the users who were asserting that it was a disguised editorial by Icewhiz). No, there is not an "Icewhiz exception", however reprehensible his behaviour was, and in fact, the Icewhiz mention, at least on the initial stages, is more an appeal to emotion than to anything else. These editors may argue on the talk page but they shouldn't be deleting the RS themselves because they consider it somehow defamatory and therefore not RS.
I will also address this fragment: If the allegation is that they are trying to suppress the article simply because it mentions them [...] - that would require extremely strong evidence to overcome WP:AGF, especially given that they were involved in the dispute long before it was printed in a position essentially identical to what they now hold, ie. there's no indication that the presence of their names in the article has any bearing on their opinion about it at all. I don't see how this should disprove the notion there exists a COI in this case. We don't have another article without their mentions to compare with, and even those that simply mention Haaretz get opposition from these same editors because, as they say, it ultimately leads to the offending article. There probably has been no change in the opinion itself but there was certainly a change in the intensity of its manifestation, otherwise no one would have rallied to revert the article's addition a dozen times.
There has also been a disingenious attempt to say that because this article was sparked by the Warsaw concentration camp errors persisting for 15 years, for which VM and Piotrus were not responsible, they do not have a COI. The WP article was only a trigger for the article, but you are here not because you were somehow responsible for the hoax there but because your other edits are discussed, in other articles, that Haaretz says is indicative of a general nationalist bent in editing in Holocaust-related articles - the Warsaw concentration camp was simply a jewel in the crown in all that, according to the newspaper. (You may disagree with the opinion but we don't mention it anyway).
I guess that the situation where something good happens about a user (the Doc James example) is a pure hypothetical unless this person boasts about the mention in the article everywhere (and yes, I would say it's better to make others decide whether mentioning the person makes sense).
What's saddest in all this discussion is that the text which Haaretz cited has never, never actually mentioned anyone by name, and no one, no one has ever said that the fact we messed this up was somehow not true. People are arguing here as if not only their lives or deaths depended on that but as if we were trying to write a new article based on Haaretz's scoop. In fact, we are barely citing one or two sentences. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 09:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Two conflicts of interest: one with the source and the other with Jan Grabowski, with whom Piotrus had a public disagreement after the piece was published. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] The editors should avoid editing and voting on both. François Robere ( talk) 13:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Clear COI. As I said elsewhere: It's a bit like Trump calling organisations publishing negative stories about him as "[unreliable] fake news" (c.f. WP:MANDY etc). Those appealing to wild hypotheticals (i.e. reliable sources apparently naming Wikipedia editors negatively to get forced recusals) haven't presented any evidence of that happening. Any source that does that probably isn't going to be a reliable source, and reliable sources have better to do than chase after Wikipedia editors to get forced recusals. The default interest of any editor is writing to improve the encyclopaedia. Obviously an editor named negatively by a source has an interest (real or apparent) in preventing the usage of that source. Ergo, there's a conflict of interest, and these editors shouldn't be removing content attributed to the source. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hum I am not enthusiastic about the notion that externally generated constraints be placed on editors, WP community can manage such things itself. The involvement of a banned editor also leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This isn't COI I'm sorry but all of this is a whole bunch of bad faithed ridiculous HOOEY pushed by Icewhiz's friends and meatpuppets on Wikipedia (since he can't do that himself, seeing as he's indefinetly banned for, among other things, making death threats agains editors' families). These friends - let's put all our cards on the table here - are Levivich and Francois Robere (usually supported in these endeavors by various sock puppets of Icewhiz or other indef banned users). Here is what COI actually is, from WP:COI:
    • "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest."
Sorry. In this instance I am not contributing anything about myself, family, friends, clients, employers (in fact I hadn't even edited the Warsaw Concentration camp article prior to this article coming out, aside from one minor copy edit like eight years prior). I do not have any financial or other relationships with Haaretz or Benjakob. All that has happened here is that an indef banned user went running to Haaretz, fed a journalist a bunch of bullshit, that journalist then reprinted that bullshit (along the way for some reason using and linking an outright hate/shock site as a source for his info) mentioning me in passing. Guess what? Over 11+ years of editing I've actually been mentioned in several outlets:
At Breitbart, another indef banned user wrote a bunch of nonsense about me [can't link] (several times actually). Does that mean I now have "Conflict of Interest" regarding Breitbart or Donald Trump or CNN or other topics that banned editors mentioned in their dumb piece? Hell no.
Similar thing happened with Gateway Pundit [can't link for obvious reasons]. Again, indef banned editors and their buddies in the "media" write a whole slew of nonsense and mention me in that context. Does that mean I have a "Conflict of Interest" with regard to Gateway Pundit? No. Really, seriously, just, no.
I could go on. There've been other several times where someone writes about me externally. In none of those times, including the present one, have I gotten involved in the external discussion (cuz why?) None of these constitute a "conflict of interest" as defined by Wikipedia policy (or even common sense, except in some ridiculously broad sense).
All you got here is that some editors just can't get over the fact that their buddy - Icewhiz - got indef banned, while I still get to edit Wikipedia. Now, this is easily explained by the simple fact that I didn't go making death threats and doxxing people, while their friend did, but somehow they don't seem to understand this, and it really really irritates them. So, in addition to trying to spam this story into as many places on Wikipedia as a form of "revenge" against myself (and Piotrus) they've cooked up this "COI" nonsense.
There's no COI here. There is however some really disturbing meat puppetry. Really, some folks just need to get over the fact that Icewhiz was banned and stop trying to fight his battle and "defend his legacy" or whatever on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
It is not only one article in Haaretz. There was another one by Daniel Blatman entitled "Israel, It's Time to Call Off the anti-Polish Hunt" ( [23]). Everyone who happens to have Haaretz access might want to check it. The article, as you can guess by the title, is quite supportive of Poland and Poles in general, and is actually unflattering of Omer Benjakob's account. Nevertheless, the author points out "if there is truly a guilty side regarding the whole lie of the annihilation by gas in the Warsaw concentration camp – it is Wikipedia, which is not dealing properly with all kinds of contemptible people who succeed in posting stories and lies in its pages that have a clear purpose: to distort and deny the Holocaust." Regrettably, the Wikipedia authorities seem to have failed with handling this issue, cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland which apparently didn't tackle anything. Maybe it's time for them to have a more thorough look? Polska jest Najważniejsza ( talk) 17:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Hej PjN/Miacek, how many editors do you think have edited the article on an obscure German far-right author over the last ten years? Not many. And out of those, how many have made almost exactly the same edit, ten years apart, but with two different accounts? Not enough? Ok. How many editors do you think have edited the article on an fairly obscure Polish author? Not many. And out of those, how many have made almost exact the same edit, eight years apart, but with two different accounts? Not enough? We also have Witold_Gombrowicz, War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) December 2001 riots in Argentina Alfred-Maurice de Zayas etc. etc. Just go start your new sockpuppet account, and next time pick a less troll-ish account name so as to be less noticed.
(the Blatman article doesn't mention the ArbCom case or any editors, despite the false claim made by this sock puppet). Volunteer Marek 17:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Lol. Quote: "Hej PjN/Miacek, how many editors do you think have edited the article on an obscure German far-right author" over the last ten years? First, Anton Maegerle is not "far-right" as you wrongly allege, but staunchly leftist. Second, he is not "obscure", but he's quite well-known (his best days are behind him, sure, but any German like me or German-speaker like Miacek surely knows him). Honesly, how much more wrong can a guy get it? Similarly, Jerzy Andrzejewski is not "obscure" at all, most people with an interest in Poland know him, and I barely even touched this article. Try some more solid background work next time. Polska jest Najważniejsza ( talk) 18:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:DFTT. Volunteer Marek 18:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry but all of this is a whole bunch of bad faithed ridiculous HOOEY pushed by Icewhiz's friends and meatpuppets on Wikipedia Are you claiming everyone in this section claiming there's a COI here is doing so because they're Icewhiz's friends and/or meatpuppet? If so, that'd be provably false. e.g. I've never interacted with Icewhiz, and wasn't even active on this site during their tenure. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 20:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I’m not claiming that everyone in this section etc. I’m claiming that this whole absurd idea that there’s COI here was originally concocted by Icewhiz’s friends and/or meat puppets. Then you get other editors chiming in, some with better judgement than others. They started the drama and they keep feeding it fuel, but obviously they’re not the only ones who get caught up in it. Volunteer Marek 21:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Pabsoluterince :-) thanks - GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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

The allegation of "conflict of interest" in this case is indeed without merit.
If culpability attaches to anyone, it may more properly attach to the individual who had been in conflict with Wikipedia policies (and therefore had been banned from Wikipedia) and seems to have shown an interest in disinforming Haaretz.
Nihil novi ( talk) 01:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No COI. The source was not being used to cite anything that mentioned or referenced them, and even if it were, they were involved in the topic before it was published. The fact that the source was written by (and quoted) a Wikipedian who was in a protracted dispute with them makes it incredibly troubling that people are trying to seriously argue that a COI exists here - that would effectively mean that any editor in a conflict who is interviewed by a news source can effectively cripple the ability of other editors to cover the topic by mentioning everyone they are in a dispute with over it, making them unable to participate if that source is then used for vital aspects of the dispute. It is unreasonable to treat an editor as having a COI based on the actions of another editor. Beyond that, what is their "interest" in this case? If the allegation is that they are trying to suppress the article simply because it mentions them - an allegation that seems to be central to any claim that there is a COI, and yet which few people above arguing for a COI seem confident enough to even state - that would require extremely strong evidence to overcome WP:AGF, especially given that they were involved in the dispute long before it was printed in a position essentially identical to what they now hold, ie. there's no indication that the presence of their names in the article has any bearing on their opinion about it at all. Finally, I will point out that when discussing Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, at least, the question is moot anyway - WP:COI applies to articles, not to internal Wikipedia informational pages like that one (read WP:COIEDIT; every important point says article. Per WP:ARTICLE, pages in the Wikipedia space are not articles.) Remember, the purpose of that page is solely to document hoaxes so we can avoid them in the future - it is not an article, and is not intended to be a neutral, complete, or informative page in the way an article is, merely a guideline about the sorts of hoaxes we have encountered in the past. (I feel like a huge part of the problem with the massive conflict there is that people are treating it like an article rather than an internal guideline.) But more generally, allowing an editor like Icewhiz to manufacture a COI by going to a friendly press outlet and producing an interview which is then used as a source would effectively allow every high-profile individual to force individual editors off of pages related to them by engaging in, and then publicizing, one-sided disputes with editors. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    @ Aquillion - Precisely. Do you know what hurts me the most Aquillion? The fact that this former editor still gets some support here. For Christ Sake he was booted out of Wikipedia by ArbCom (for good reason) then he was slandering his opponent on Twitter - (Twitter bans him). Then goes to the press - Lord only knows which other titles other than Haaretz. His false story somehow get published by one paper and republished by a few others. Then that individual proceeds to post lies about his opponents all over the internet. Then delivers death threats to his opponents and their families. (families! kids! imagine that!). Calls his opponent's workplaces to lie about them. (Lord knows what else he was doing) Gets globally banned, but still runs countless sockpuppets here. One of those sock puppets was nearly awarded an administrative status last month (Eostrix [24]).. and we are supposed to prevent editors in good standing to clean the odour after that terrifying individual? No way. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    Reprehensible people are able to tell the truth (not saying he is or isn't but that these are argumentum ad hominem fallacies). As it stands, yes any editor could go to a news source covering a topic and an editor and I would argue COI if they were trying to remove it. The argument does not ask for editors with an article written about them in a topic to cease editing in that topic, it just asks that they follow COI guidelines when removing the source/ content referenced by the source. The simple fact is that we are only discussing reliable sources. What are the chances that a reliable source publishes false claims, by a Wikipedia editor? Low, almost by definition. If a reliable source started to publish stories using about Wikipedians that were consistently false (an argument that needs to still take place over this content but not here), then we could downgrade them to not reliable/ unreliable when it comes to Wikipedia and the editor could remove the source with community consensus. Like I stated below, calling this a COI does not mean not assuming good faith. I also answered your interest queries there too. In terms of the article thing, COI in a nutshell states "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships.". Debate whether COI can occur in non-article spaces is ridiculous, of course it shouldn't occur in non-article spaces. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 06:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    Whether it is true or false, and whether it is a reliable or WP:DUE source for what it says, are all utterly irrelevant to the COI question. The only question that matters when determining a COI is whether an impartial observer could reasonably conclude that they are removing it because of what it says about them (ie, the "interest" in question.) You, yourself - an observer who has clearly already taken a position against them - have already conceded that that is not the case; and obviously you had no choice but to conceded that, since given their past editing they plainly would have taken this position regardless of whether it mentioned them or not. You cannot seriously assert that an impartial observer would judge them more harshly than you are given your involvement in the dispute, and, therefore, you can no longer reasonably assert that they have a COI without engaging in obvious WP:ASPERSIONS. You need to drop this, now - it is completely unacceptable to try and taint the reputation of editors in good standing with insinuations of wrongdoing that you know, yourself, to be false. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    Saying that someone has a COI is not engaging in aspersions. Saying someone has a COI does not mean that they have done something wrong, nor does it taint their reputation (take a look at WP:COINOTBIAS). We all have conflicts of interest about certain things, the companies we work, the people we know... In this case they certainly haven't done anything wrong because the nature of their relationship is still being decided. If it is found that there is a COI, then they should follow COI guidelines in the future, I don't think that would mean they did anything wrong (because the policy could be considered an undecided edge case).
I disagree that the only question that matters in determining COI is whether they acted because of their conflicting interest, just that they have a conflicting interest. The intentions of the editor do not matter. No one likes having something negative written about them, no one likes the negative content being publicised (or at least one can reasonably conclude); therefore one interest of the editors would be to remove the content, the other interest is to improve Wikipedia. We know that they are acting in their interest to remove the content, what we don't know is to what extent that affected their decision (if at all). This is especially important when applying to future examples in which we know frighteningly little.
While I think in this case the interest to remove the content aligns with the editors interest to improve Wikipedia, there is a potential for an editor in the same scenario to not be acting in the interest of improving Wikipedia. By using a general interpretation of the scenario (one in which I don't have an opinion on the extent to which their competing interest affected their decision), we might be calling out a COI despite there existing no bias, but it means that people with a genuine bias won't be allowed to choose their conflicting interest over improving Wikipedia. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 10:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:COI, When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. If you are unable to claim that they have an external role or relationship that could reasonably be said to undermine their role as an editor, then they have no COI. I have repeatedly pressed you on whethe their relationship to the article can reasonably be said to undermine their role as an editor, and to my reading you repeatedly acknowledged that you cannot reasonably make that claim. Therefore, they have no COI. You engaged, and continue to engage in, WP:ASPERSIONS when you then turned around and tried to insinuate otherwise after acknowledging you couldn't support it - editing with a clear COI is obviously misconduct; claiming someone has a COI when you've effectively acknowledged they do not is therefore likewise misconduct, especially when it involves vague speculations about their motivations that you have acknowledged are unreasonable in the specifics. And while I understand your concern about being scrupulous, it's important to also acknowledge the reverse concern - when someone uses false COI claims to remove editors they are in a dispute with, that undermines WP:COI far more severely. And while I can't speak to your specific involvement, unlike you, I am willing to say, in the general case, that this is what I see here - I feel that some of the with which the attempt to remove these two users is being pressed is grounded more in an effort to remove them from the topic area (note the absurd requests from people in dispute with them to topic-ban them from the entire topic after claiming that this supposed COI was limited to one article, which rather gives the game away; note also the ridiculous extent to which people are trying to cite this article across Wikipedia, immediately followed by COI accusations if anyone even mentioned in it reacts. And you yourself have acknowledged that, even in your most extreme reckoning - one I still consider absurd and indefensible - this is a hazy borderline situation where your best argument seems to boil down to "fine, they have no actual COI, but we need to make an example of them anyway.") I do think the editors in question have managed to broadly convince themselves (although I also think it tends to fall apart when pressed on the specifics of how this supposed COI works, as I feel I've demonstrated), but the fact is that it's remarkably easy for editors to convince themselves that someone they're in an extended dispute with needs to be removed from the topic area. As you can see, even the original post in this thread - before any derailing - rather delved into a bunch of COI-unrelated complaints, such as eg. listing edits the editor found objectionable from before the supposed COI could possibly apply. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
My best argument boils down to, "in the interest of transparency, these editors should not be removing the article". WP:COINOTBIAS COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. If there is a relationship, we assume there is a tendency to bias. Hence I am assuming that there is a tendency to bias and labelling it as a COI. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 03:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Aquillion Thank you for taking time to comment. Minor nitpick that is also relevant to a lot of other comments here: we should really stop calling this a "hoax". Per WP:HOAX and any random dictionary definition, a hoax implies a "deliberate attempt to mislead". There is no evidence that either the real-life originator of this WP:FRINGE theory ( Maria Trzcińska), nor the editor who added it to Wikipedia ( User:Halibutt, RIP) did so with the intention to mislead. Since we are focusing on Wikipedia, it's worth noting that when this was added to Wikipedia, in early 2000s, the criticism of that fringe theory was niche (just like the theory itself), it only became debunked later (at which point Halibutt moved on to editing other topics and more or less retired from serious content creaiton). Per AGF, in light of absence of evidence to the contrary (such as the admission of guilt - someting that is not uncommon, see various cases at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes) we should not call it a hoax, but an error (presenting a fringe theory as a fact or common opinion). Interested editors are invited to join the discussion at the talk of the linked wiki list ( RfC link), since it probably needs review and a split (there are numerous cases beside Warsaw camp's one that while problematic and likely erroneus cannot be in good faith called hoaxes). Let's remember that calling something a hoax implies that the editor who added it was intentionally attempting to mislead others. That's a serious accusation (and conclusion) that should not be used lightly. If one of us makes an error that is not corrected until we pass, I don't think we would want - or deserve - to be called hoax perpatrators either. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
That is entirely unrelated to the WP:COI claims (and the extent to which everyone on both sides has dived into it - including the filer, in their very filing! - shows how little this absurd claim has to do with any actual COI concerns.) But I'll point out that I used the term only in relation to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and its purpose. I agree that editors should generally refrain from using language that obviously takes a side in the underlying dispute when discussing this, since it tends to derail discussions, but it can be hard to avoid and I also think it's a waste of time to confront them or point it out, since that just derails discussions further. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Obvious COI – I've read as much of this thread as I can bear. It largely consists of the affected editors bludgeoning the discussion with defenses of their stances in this edit conflict. There is also extensive analysis and pointed assertions that a 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)
  • Not a COI and really if you are saying it is you have a basic misunderstanding of what a conflict of interest actually is. This is also just enabling a further continuation of Icewhiz's harrassment of wikipedians he was ideologically opposed to, and the real question that should be asked here is "Why are we allowing obvious Icewhiz stooges to continue to use wikipedia to harrass people and push extremist agendas?" Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Amazing that you apparently think it's okay to call people obvious Icewhiz stooges and claim that they use wikipedia to harrass [ sic people. Is that the basis for your !vote? AlexEng( TALK) 10:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    @ AlexEng quite --> I've read as much of this thread as I can bear. How much did you read? next quote - It largely consists of the affected editors bludgeoning suggests you didn’t read much - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Quite enough, I dare say, GizzyCatBella—certainly enough to make an assessment. Incidentally, did you read WP:BLUDGEONING prior to making that remark? AlexEng( TALK) 10:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    1 - this thread does not largely consists of the affected editors bludgeoning and yes I have read Wikipedia:BLUDGEONING many times before.
    2 - it appears that you don't entirely understand what WP:COI is. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    1 - Really? Perhaps I imagined the thirty-three instances of Volunteer Marek's distinctive blue/orange signature in this section? Perhaps I miscounted the fifteen instances of your distinctive maple leaf? Maybe I mistook the several walls of text as from Piotrus? Or maybe your point of view is preventing you from seeing the facts here.
    2 - Interesting point. Counterpoint: it appears that you don't entirely understand what WP:COI is. This is such a textbook example of a COI that it should be used as an example to explain the concept to new editors. AlexEng( TALK) 11:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I imagined the thirty-three instances of Volunteer Marek's distinctive blue/orange signature in this section - You apparently have a problem with someone who is being attacked defending themselves? OF COURSE I answered a lot - that's kind of what you have to do when others throw false allegations at you.
      This is such a textbook example of a COI... - except it's not, as should be painstakingly obvious to anyone who's actually read WP:COI. Volunteer Marek 15:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Attacked, you say? A discussion of a potential COI is not an attack. It's not morally wrong or even against policy to have a COI. My mention of the apparent fact that you felt the need to comment so verbosely on this section is a part of my summation of the content of the discussion. You're still mistaken regarding your interpretation of WP:COI. That much is painfully obvious. AlexEng( TALK) 18:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    @ AlexEng -You’ve read as much as you could bare. Then you counted signatures? Well, thank you for your comments. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    @ GizzyCatBella: I counted them after you challenged what I presumed to be a pretty uncontroversial statement. AlexEng( TALK) 11:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Short answer: yes when its this blatant. I really dont care if people are deliberately proxying for Icewhiz, I dont care if they are Icewhiz socks, I dont care if they are perfectly innocent independant editors who have zero knowledge or interest in Icewhiz. The end result of their actions is they are continuing Icewhiz's campaign of harrassment and ideological crusade and its needs to stop. It really doesnt matter what their actual motivation is. Perhaps 'Patsy' would be a better word than 'stooge'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Alright. The fact that several people agree on one issue with someone doesn't make them "stooges" or "patsies". It also doesn't make the expression of that opinion "harassment". It's fine to disagree. It's less fine to engage in name-calling and casting aspersions vis-a-vis the very real harassment policy. AlexEng( TALK) 11:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Section break

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

Exactly - more about it can be seen here - [25] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Also worth stressing that one of the numerous errors in Haaretz is calling this a hoax. There's a difference between an error (nobody is disputing an error was entered into Wikipedia and remained there for many years), calling this a hoax implies, per WP:HOAX and any simple dictionary definition, "a deliberate attempt to mislead" - in other words, that such error had to be created by someone who was aware it was an error but nonetheless decided to promote known falsehood as a fact. Setting aside that Nihil Novi is likely right about Trzcińska - we cannot be sure, of course, but BLP also encourages AGF - this is very much true for the Wikipedia case, where there is zero evidence the editor who added this was aware it was an error (that editor, User:Halibutt, is a former pl-WMF staffer, an editor in good standing, and sadly deceased, so they cannot defend themselves of clarifying anything). Calling this to indicate a hoax is besmirching a memory of our colleague, yet another attempt by Icewhiz to portray "Poles on Wikipedia" (quote from Haaretz, where the term is used with no qualifiers, pigeonholing an entire ethnic group) as problematic. Yes, the article gets some facts correct, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have elements of fake news and hate speech - and it gets many others wrong. Seriously, folks, Icewhiz got banned for a reason - and his harassment was already known and discussed by the community in 2019, including by the journalist who talks about the "alleged Twitter account" operated by Icewhiz (said Twitter was used for personal attacks on some Wikipedians, including me and Marek, for spreading fake news such as calling us Holocaust deniers and so on, and for contacting our family members, co-workers, and other underhanded methods of influencing the situation). As admitted by the article itself (quote above), this article's goal is to be used as ammunition for Icewhiz cause on- and off-wiki. We should have a clear policy not allowing such content. And since this is a COI noticeboard, I think we should also look at the COI involved in using such a source to give the indef-banned harasser a voice. Icewhiz obviously has a COI here too and we should not be enabling him to bypass it by reusing a source that is very sympathetic to him, contains numerous errors, and smears the names of numerous Wikipedians in good standing. Last fun fact: in some cases, the article has been added or restored by Icewhiz himself or known Icewhiz socks (a minority of cases, IIRC, but still...). This entire "story" was started by Icewhiz: [26]. Please stop empowering him. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to start a section looking at the COI involved in using the source. This section, however, is strictly for determining if there is a COI in an editor removing information or an article that is critical of said editor. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 10:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

No way. 740 words out of like 6k+ and it's fair use/ right to quote anyway. The quotes are needed to rebut arguments like "...which the newspaper accepts at face value..." (not true, the newspaper vetted the claims and checked with two experts). I could add more quotes to rebut the argument that the newspaper was "sympathetic" to Icewhiz, but meh. Levivich 12:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah... non-extensive quotes in projectspace aren't copyvio, and don't deprive the copyright holder of any value. If it were, Balfour_Declaration#Notes definitely should be considered copyvio. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • At the very least, the editors mentioned in the Haaretz piece acting to remove any mention of said incident from several articles should be considered unethical. They should leave this issue to others. Polska jest Najważniejsza ( talk) 14:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
^^ This is a sock puppet of indef banned user [27], who just barely managed to pass the 500/30 threshold restriction and then immediately jumped into this controversy in order to harass myself and Piotrus. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the WP:SPI case opened yet. Why the delay? Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have any evidence to back up any of your assertions? That it was "ghostwritten"? That I'm a friend of Icewhiz or a meatpuppet or otherwise acting on his behalf or at his direction? As for COI policy, it says Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself emphasis on yourself. You are written about in this article because you are one of the editors who are implicated. You are called out by name in the newspaper article, with specific examples of your editing. No one is saying you have a COI against all of Haaretz, just that one article. It's also flatly false that FR and I are the ones restoring the content; there are many editors doing that who have lots of edits and are in good standing (not obvious sock puppets). Some are obvious sock puppets, but every time, there are editors in good standing who are replacing the content and "vouching" for it. That's why the content stayed stable for two years--I and other editors in good standing checked the sources and put it back. I assume you won't be providing any evidence of your accusations nor striking these aspersions, but I personally am tired of taking you to noticeboards so I won't be reporting this one. Levivich 17:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I have not edited anything about myself (with or without emphasis). If you have a diff of where I made an about myself, let’s see it. I’d be interested in seeing it, since I take care to not even edit articles related to my professional research area to avoid COI. Diffs or stop making stuff up.
As far as my accusations, it’s not exactly a secret that you supported Icewhiz during the ArbCom case and in subsequent discussions. I mean... if you really want me to I can provide all the diffs where you carried water/ran interference for him or his sock puppets. But as I recall last time I did that you got really upset and falsely claimed I was personally attacking you. Volunteer Marek 17:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Levivich Are you okay with me plowing the diff’s here where you appear to be shouldering Icewhiz’s edits, including his sockpuppets? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 20:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I must say I am deeply impressed that you keep moving away from the issue at hand, COI, namely yours. The fact that Levivich did not mention any thing about the sources reliability, or the fact that he's a supposed friend of Icewhiz, becomes less impressive and more intuitive when you consider that it is beside the point. The very core of the debate is; if a wikipedia editor is mentioned in an article published (negatively or otherwise), is there a (potential) COI in adding or removing that source and information that references the source. Any looking at the reliability of the source/the person shouldn't come up here because it doesn't affect the scenario of a potential COI. In terms of COI policy I feel compelled to point some out; WP:EXTERNALREL: "Any external relationship — personal...—can trigger a COI." I believe you are externally mentioned in the article. You have a personal relationship with the article because you contributed to it and have deep misgivings about it's creation and creator. Where I think you keep stumbling is that Wikipedia:COINOTBIAS: just because you have a COI, doesn't mean that you have been biased your editing. You can have still upheld complete integrity while editing and you could be completely correct that the article doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Doesn't change the COI scenario. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 04:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Are you replying to me or GCB? IIRC, GCB isn't even mentioned in the article. Neither GCB nor myself contributed to it. Volunteer Marek 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I was replying to you VM. When I say contributed to the article I mean that you as a person contributed to the content of the article insofar that it mentions you. Your editing on Wikiedpia formed the basis of a section of the article. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 05:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A COI requires a vested interest in the subject, which in this case would have to be a desire by the editors in question to protect their reputations. Are you willing to state definitively that you believe, or at least feel that a neutral reader could reasonably believe, that Volunteer Marek and Piotrus are removing this article because it mentions them? Because I see that as a completely unreasonable assertion, to the point of being WP:ASPERSIONS - they have both been editing in this subject for an extended period of time with the same general perspective and would obviously have disagreed with using any source that heavily leaned on Icewhiz. If you are unwilling to directly make that accusation yourself, then this discussion ought to be closed now - if even you are unable to seriously express a belief in what would be the core presumption necessary for a COI to exist, then obviously none exists. (And, truthfully - and completely fair warning here - I would say that if you are willing to say it, VM and Piotrus ought to take you to WP:AE for aspersions; it is obviously an absurd accusation, hence why the massive walls of text above tiptoe around it rather than stating it outright.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
They are actively seeking out the article in unrelated areas to where they have been editing (see above) and removing it. I do not think that they are removing the article because it mentions them, none the less the act of removing the article represents a conflict of interest because it could contribute to their decision. If a reliable source wrote the most horrendous stuff about you that you knew wasn't true and removed it, it represents a COI. Even if you're removing it just because it's not true, it's in your interests to not look bad at the same time. The point of this is when the opposite happens: when a reliable source writes something horrendous against someone who knows it's true. In that case the person has the same COI as the person in the scenario prior, only they have no good intentions to remove it. In both cases the person wants to remove the content and will argue that the source is not reliable. The only way to tell them apart is to look at the claims and determine whether we believe them to be true or not. In both cases the person with the COI will argue that the claims are false and try discredit them. It is for this reason the person with the COI must not be apart of the evaluation of the source (IMO), even though in one scenario (and this one), the person is acting completely reasonably and ethically. That is why I am arguing for a COI, not because I think the editor is doing anything in bad faith, but because it sets the right precident for the same process in the future where an editor might be. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 05:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not think that they are removing the article because it mentions them. Then you have no grounds to assert a COI. I'll note that the other stuff you wrote continues with the same WP:ASPERSIONS (aspersions of an accusation you now have admitted you believe to be false) - after admitting that they are not removing the article because it mentions them, you vaguely protest that it could contribute to their decision. But it did not; you've already conceded that it does not, and if you (one of the people most strongly opposed to them) is forced to concede that, then you've also admitted that no impartial observer could conclude that it contributed to them removing it. Your vague hypothetical about people removing a source that mentions them based on what it says about is irrelevant - you've conceded that they're not removing it because of what it says about them. Again, I strongly urge them to take you to WP:AE if you don't drop this - at this point you are openly trying to throw aspersions at editors in good standing that you have conceded yourself are untrue. If you continue from this point it is going to be your conduct that is going to come under scrutiny, not theirs. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I will try to make this plain. If an article writes negative things about an editor, there is a potential conflict of interest between an editors desire to improve Wikipedia and remove material that makes them look bad. Sometimes, those interests are aligned, as I believe to be true in this case: VM is removing the material because he believes he is improving Wikipedia. Sometimes those interests might not be aligned. There is no contradiction between my belief that there is a conflict of interest and my belief that VM is acting in good faith. If the next case on the COIN was an editor removing content from a reliable source that made him look bad, would you say it's a conflict of interest? Pabsoluterince ( talk) 07:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This whole mess is entirely avoidable

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

@ AndyTheGrump Good point re WP:NAVEL. Now, I am actually fine with the reliability... article - the topic is the focus of a number of academic sources. But the insistence on mentioning in a Wikipedia article that it was mentioned in some news sources is occasionally misplaced per WP:TRIVIA (and at worst, weaponized). {{ Press}} on talk is usually more than enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
By that logic, most of the examples on the Reliability of WP page (near the bottom) could be called trivia, as only a few of WP's misadventures in reliability have had widespread coverage. Ignoring any of the editors/battlegrounds involved in the mess, it happened, it was fixed after 10+ yr (following the Davies article), and that it happened on WP was documented by a normally reliable source. That's definitely not trivial, but there's also no need to go farther than the top-level stuff. I appreciate that if we went any deeper than that surface level, the Hareetz article becomes very problematic, but we're just not going that far. -- Masem ( t) 16:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Don't be silly, of course Wikipedia will have articles about Wikipedia, just like Britannica has an article about Britannica [28]. It would be censorship if Wikipedia did not summarize RS about itself. Wikipedia exists in the real world and is part of it, and thus will be written about in the encyclopedia to the extent RS write about it, because Wikipedia summarizes RS. Levivich 13:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
How many articles does Britannica have about itself? ~ cygnis insignis 17:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Point well taken. But how many articles does the New York Times have about itself? Media covers itself, and it should. Levivich 17:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
How many editors does Britannica have? Britannica isn't a social phenomenon in and of itself, Wikipedia is. Wikipedia's culture, in and of itself, is WP:NOTABLE. François Robere ( talk) 14:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out repeatedly, Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, where the bulk of this dispute has played out, is not an article. It is an internal guideline page intended solely to help us identify deliberate hoaxes in the future so that we can avoid problems with them if the hoaxer or others with the same methodology happen to strike again. As far as I can tell it has not been used for that purpose in ages, and I personally feel it would be better to MFD the whole thing given the amount of time and effort that has been wasted on this - tangential internal Wikipedia pages are not supposed to consume so much of our time and energy. It isn't supposed to be the place to argue over whether something is or is not a hoax (as can be seen by the fact that - to get back on topic - COI doesn't even apply there in the first place. Even NPOV and V do not apply there! It is an internal reference page, not an article; nobody should be relying on it for factual information outside of the limited internal utility it provides, and if people are, then that is a problem best solved by deleting it entirely and moving whatever information belongs elsewhere, elsewhere.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • And you'll note that nobody filed a COIN thread back when it was just the project-space page. But since then, two actual articles. This is definitely a mainspace issue. Levivich 17:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • And I want to take a minute to remind everyone of the question asked in this thread: If a newspaper publishes an article critical of an editor's editing, can the editor remove that newspaper article, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia? The same issues would apply to an editor adding a source to mainspace that was complimentary of the editor. Levivich 19:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      Why do you think we need a reminder on how you composed that question Levivich? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      Because editors are discussing off-topic topics such as whether Wikipedia should have articles about Wikipedia, whether COI applies in projectspace, whether being written about by a newspaper gives an editor a COI from the newspaper or the topic area, and whether I am Icewhiz or equivalent, among other topics. Levivich 20:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I mean, I think you're getting a pretty clear answer to that above - while it's divisive, if we focus on people who were previously uninvolved in the dispute it seems pretty clear that you're not going to get a consensus to bar those removals at this point, especially given how bludgeoning by multiple editors and constant derailings into arguing over the underlying material has turned this into an unreadable mess of people shouting at each other. I would also take issue with your wording of the question - the key point, to me, is Can the editor an editor remove a newspaper article that mentions them, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia, in contexts where the material being sourced does not mention or reference that editor? The bolded point is, to me, vital because it removes any reasonable inference of a personal interest from the removal; and beyond that I feel that this dispute has spilled out into enough places without wasting additional editor time and energy with spurious requests like this. At the very least I think people who have been seriously involved in the dispute in the past should, after saying their piece, step back and let new voices weigh in. While you're hardly the only one guilty of this, I daresay everyone knows what you think at this point - it's not becoming more convincing through repetition. If you feel incredibly strongly about whether editors can remove sources that mention them, in contexts where that mention is not what the source is being used for as a general principle (rather than something specific to VM and this specific dispute), I would suggest stepping back, waiting for the specific Warsaw dispute to die down and for a consensus to be reached on where to use that particular source, then returning to the subject and discussing whether WP:COI should be updated to clarify this as a general principle. It seems clear from the breakdown above that that underlying interpretation of COI is unresolved and that trying to resolve it in the context of such an acrimonious dispute is not going to go anywhere. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
        • a pretty clear answer is definitely not what I'm getting above. I see a split of opinion and no clear consensus one way or the other, so far. Levivich 21:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
          @ Levivich l.o.l. No. I’m seeing something quite opposite. There are 15 users (fast count) who believe you are wrong. Including broad explanations as to why you are mistaken, such as those of @ Aquillion. How many supporters do you have Levivich? :-) Go ahead Levivich, give us the number. You can include into your calculations editors who VM named as possible sock-puppets. They always show up. You know that, right? Or do you want me to show you the diffs? GizzyCatBella 🍁 23:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said, I only considered the opinions of uninvolved editors (ie. not anyone who was extensively involved in the underlying dispute already), for reasons that I hope are obvious given the rancorous nature of this dispute; by that measure, my count has the results as fairly one-sided against your position. But that's not the main point - you say "so far", but I think it's fairly clear at this point that you're not going to get sufficient consensus to sanction or remove anyone here; all this is doing now is stirring up bad blood. If you're concerned with the underlying policy (which is truthfully far more important than a dispute over whether to use one source on a handful of pages), the best thing to do would be to put this down for now and wait until it has died down, then go to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest and seek clarifications to the policy on whether "editors can remove sources that mention them, in contexts where that mention is not what the source is being used for" so there's no such split if it happens again. The middle of a rancorous long-running dispute is not really the best place to try and clarify - or to seek enforcement for - policy interpretations on which the community is split. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • sufficient consensus to sanction or remove anyone here is not the goal, and it's a totally unreasonable interpretation of the OP. The middle of a rancorous long-running dispute is not really the best place to try and clarify - or to seek enforcement for - policy interpretations on which the community is split. We didn't know the community was split before this thread, and I'm not the one making it rancorous. There are ongoing content disputes on which the question I raised here directly bears. It's been going on for months (really years if you count the 2019 stuff). This is the correct place to raise this issue and seek input. I reject your assertion that I have done something wrong here or wasted anyone's time. I am not the only editor who has these concerns. Levivich 00:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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

@ Chumchum7: FWIW keep reading. Haaretz, Israel's paper of record. [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)
Not in this situation [29] and not the article based on the faked story [30] delivered to Haaretz by the globally banned actor. GizzyCatBella 🍁 00:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue Poeticbent also has (had) a COI in this case (in line with my !vote), which rather diminishes the value of his essays. (He's not active, so he's not mentioned). Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 09:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


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

Why are you now attacking a discussion that took place in 2019? This is obvious well poisoning. Are we expected to believe that arguments made by a blocked sock are automatically invalid and shall never be discussed again? Give me a break. AlexEng( TALK) 21:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Lol. Here's what we have:
User:AlexEng: Attacked, you say? A discussion of a potential COI is not an attack. - so... being falsely accused of ridiculous things is, according to Alex, definitely not being attacked.
Also User:AlexEng: Why are you now attacking a discussion that took place in 2019 - but, pointing out the relevant context - that all this mess can be traced to trolling ny a sock puppet of an indef banned user (and it's that banned user's wiki friends that are pushing this line here), well, oh my gosh! that's "ATTACKING THE DISCUSSION!!!!". Poor discussion. I hope it survives this attack. The discussion will probably need therapy afterwards though, since it was attacked. Poor, poor, discussion, I hope it recovers someday.
Anyway. How about we just close this whole stinking mess, since it ain't going nowhere? Volunteer Marek 03:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek One more comment accusing me of being a wiki friend/meat puppet/proxy of a banned user and I'm taking it to AE. My patience for being smeared by you is now exhausted. Levivich 05:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
How about you stop bringing up some ArbCom case from 12 years ago and insinuating that I’m on super sekrit email list? Volunteer Marek 06:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: you are straining the limits of my capacity to assume good faith with your feigned incredulity. The sheer magnitude of the mental gymnastics required to come to this conclusion after reading what each of us said is amazing. Do you really not understand the difference between attacking an argument (discussion) and attacking a person? It is my view that there is a rough consensus here that you have a COI with respect to the article under discussion. But, sure. Let's move on. Right after a closer handles it. Feel free to make a request for closure if you're quite finished making your point. AlexEng( TALK) 20:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Alex, the fact that there is a difference between “attacking a discussion” (sic), whatever that means, and “attacking a person” is EXACTLY my point. You seem to be really upset about the former but are cool with the latter. I honestly don’t know what to make of your latest comment since it so blatantly contradicts your earlier posts.
And no, there’s no such consensus, gimme a freaking break. If anything it’s the opposite. Probably because the idea that there’s any COI here is not only absurd but also not actually based in the policy as written. As numerous commentators have pointed out over and over and over again.
I really wish you guys stopped trying to use denying the obvious as a rhetorical tactic. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
"Attacking a discussion" seems pretty self-explanatory. In the referenced comment, GizzyCatBella appears to be attacking the credibility of the points being made in this discussion based on the idea that a sock puppet made some similar points during a discussion in 2019. Drawing attention to this fallacious reasoning is appropriate. Personal attacks are obviously inappropriate and against policy. Your insistence that you are somehow being "attacked" is therefore an unwarranted appeal to the WP:NPA policy. Again, I thought this was pretty clear. Do you actually not understand my reasoning here?
We must be living in different worlds if you don't see the affirmative consensus here. At this point, editors are getting exasperated below at the frankly bizarre attempts to pretend that there is not an obvious COI here. You and a couple of other people are just repeatedly hammering the same point that WP:COI does not support the existence of a COI in the face of clear facts and plain language in the policy. That's not a substantive rebuttal and should be weighed appropriately by the closer of the discussion. AlexEng( TALK) 22:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
"Attacking a discussion" is ridiculous language. What. Does. That. Even. Mean? Like with a halberd or something? Come on. "Attacking the credibility of the points being made" makes more sense... but also there's nothing wrong with that!!!! That's exactly what one is suppose to do. Answer ("attack" is just your hyperbolic, overblown, exaggerated, emotional, language) the points being made. For some reason you think there's ... something wrong with that? At the same time you're perfectly fine with editors leveling completely false accusations (I'm still waiting on some apologies) and making personal attacks? Sorry bud, you got it exactly ass-backwards.
And please stop it with the gaslighting. There's no consensus of the type you claim here.
"100% no".
"No. ...Why are we arguing about this story, who we know was fed to this journalist by a globally banned user?".
"If we were to call this COI, then I would be worried about articles that praise WP for something would become also reviewed under the same light".
"Hum I am not enthusiastic about the notion that externally generated constraints be placed on editors, ".
"There is no COI in this particular case.".
"The allegation of "conflict of interest" in this case is indeed without merit.".
"No COI"
"Not a COI and really if you are saying it is you have a basic misunderstanding of what a conflict of interest actually is. "
" But the COI policy only serves to prohibit these editors from writing directly about themselves. It doesn't prohibit them from writing about a subject for which they were criticised."
"Looking at all the arguments above I'll be as concise as I can. There is no COI. "
"I agree. All this sound and fury signifying nothing (more or less, as someone or other :) once said. No COI. Please find something more useful to do"
"Way too partial and looks like an WP:AXE. Besides, we at Wikipedia are WP:NOTNEWS and could care less about newspapers as sources."
And so on and so forth. What freakin' page are YOU reading? You're either commenting on some figment of your imagination or you're simply acting in bad faith and pretending that white is black and black is white. Stop it. Drop it. Enough. Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We're not stupid and we can all read words on the screen so pretending that the consensus here is opposite of what it actually is, is not going to work.
And while we're on the subject, feel free to substantiate your against-the-consensus comment alleging COI with a relevant quote from WP:COI policy itself (here it is: WP:COI) which would support your argument - something more than "I just dont like it".
Same goes for the couple of other "me too!" WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT comments (like the two below).
Volunteer Marek 00:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes COI Jesus fucking Christ, reading COIN today was a mistake, because this thread makes me want to shove a pickaxe through my skull. How much fucking clearer of a COI could there possibly be than an article which mentions someone by name to criticize them? Mlb96 ( talk) 01:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    Issuch 'language' acceptable here? Xx236 ( talk) 07:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    Swearing is generally not prohibited and should not be deleted only because it's a swearing word, but it is not endorsed, either, where not needed, and may be sometimes considered inappropriate or even inacceptable. So answering the question: it is in general tolerated, though not necessarily accepted. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 09:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    If it's so "fucking" clear, then please quote the relevant part of WP:COI that you think editors are violating. Otherwise this is just a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT useless comment. Volunteer Marek 00:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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

    Levivich 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
" editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends...and other relationships" Nobody here has "contributed" anything about themselves, their family, their friends (except Icewhiz who used Wikipedia to post death threats to editors' families .... but you already know that) or "other relationships" to Wikipedia. Stop trying pretending otherwise. You know damn well this is not true. Stop trying to fake it. This is beyond tiresome and it's so bad faithed that if there was a WP:List of Wikipedia's greatest moments of bad faith it'd be entry #1. Volunteer Marek 02:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you @ Levivich. Now kindly show one diff of VM --> editing about himself, his family or friends. GizzyCatBella 🍁 00:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know if you think sea lioning is persuasive or what, but you keep doing it. The diffs are in the OP. Every time he removed Haaretz, he was editing about himself, because the Haaretz piece is about him (in part) (and I'm not sure if Piotrus counts as "friend", but they've been editing together for 12+ years, and both were parties to EEML). Don't let me know if you have any other questions. Levivich 01:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This isn't "sea lioning". There is no "diffs in the OP". This is simply asking you to back up your false accusations. Stop trying to fake it. Stop making personal attacks against other editors by calling them "trolls" just because they dare to stand up to your constant bullying and weaseling. Removing a source, which is NOT being used to source anything about an editor is NOT 'editing about himself' except as a figment of your imagination. Except as part of your little WP:HARASSMENT crusade that you've been on ever since Icewhiz, whom you supported tenaciously during the ArbCom case and afterwards, got banned (you want diffs? I got dozens of diffs, except last time I tried to post them you complained that posting diffs to back this up was itself "bad") I asked you [36] to stop bringing up irrelevant ArbCom case from 12 years ago, which you've been doing over and over again as a sad attempt to poison the discussions, and... you just couldn't help yourself, could you? If you think that THAT "context" is somehow relevant, then so is your constant fucking support for Icewhiz and your constant enabling of his socks. If you don't want to hear that, then stop doing his dirty work and stop bringing up this ridiculous ""EEML" boogey man. Volunteer Marek 02:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
So what? I'd be happy to hear from Slatersteven (if his assessment is the same two years later) but otherwise this post brings no relevant information to the discussion. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 09:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes COI. Clearly. Per, and with the same exasperation as expressed by, Mlb96. - Ryk72 talk 04:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  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...
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_181&oldid=1064391779"