There is no Cabal

Qxz-ad39.png Qxz-ad20.gif

WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Oh, Template:Talkback is ok. Thank you.
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.
Archive

Talk archives:

Extended content

Archive 1 (created Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (created Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (created May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (created July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (created September 27, 2005), Archive 6 (created November 23, 2005), Archive 7 (created January 7, 2006), Archive 8 (created 19 March, 2006), Archive 9 (created 6 May, 2006), Archive 10 (created 17 June, 2006), Archive 11 (created 28 July, 2006), Archive 12 (created 25 September, 2006), Archive 13 (created 28 October, 2006), Archive 14 (created 27 December, 2006), Archive 15 (created 4 February, 2007), Archive 16 created 20 March, 2007), Archive 17 (created 17 May, 2007), Archive 18 (created 30 July, 2007), Archive 19 (created 25 September, 2007), Archive 20 (created 5 November, 2007), Archive 21 (created 2 January, 2008), Archive 22 (created 19 February, 2008), Archive 23 (created 8 April, 2008), Archive 24 (created 15 May, 2008), Archive 25 (created 8 July, 2008), Archive 26 (created 5 October, 2008), Archive 27 (created 4 January, 2009), Archive 28 (created 19 March, 2009), Archive 29 (created 12 May, 2009), Archive 30 (created 20 July, 2009), Archive 31 (created 11 October, 2009), Archive 32 (created 1 December, 2009), Archive 33 (created 25 March, 2010), Archive 34 (created 29 July, 2010), Archive 35 (created 1 November, 2010), Archive 36 (created 24 January, 2011), Archive 37 (created 12 May, 2011), Archive 38 (created 28 September, 2011), Archive 39 (created 16 November, 2011), Archive 40 (created 12 February, 2012), Archive 41 (created 23 April, 2012), Archive 42 (created 7 July, 2012), Archive 43 (created 27 September, 2012), Archive 44 (created 8 February, 2013), Archive 45 (created 21 April, 2013), Archive 46 (created 13 June, 2013), Archive 47 (created 26 September, 2013), Archive 48 (created 27 December, 2013), Archive 49 (created 20 March, 2014), Archive 50 (created 8 June, 2014), Archive 51 (created 2 September, 2014), Archive 52 (created 24 November, 2014), Archive 53 (created 20 April, 2015), Archive 54 (created 21 September, 2015), Archive 55 (created 4 March, 2016), Archive 56 (created 25 August, 2016), Archive 57 (created 22 December, 2016), Archive 58 (created 1 May, 2017), Archive 59 (created 1 March, 2018), Archive 60 (created 10 July, 2018), Archive 61 (created 6 March, 2019), Archive 62 (created 13 November, 2019), Archive 63 (created 23 March, 2020), Archive 64 (created 1 September, 2020), Archive 65 (created 13 February, 2021), Archive 66 (created 11 July, 2021) add new archive

Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :)
I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms.

Current RfAdminshipEdit

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 10:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


Lurking statsEdit

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days

Detailed traffic statistics


Hi!Edit

Hey Piotrus, Two things.

  • First, I was doing a little snooping and I noticed that for two of your userboxes (love me some userboxes), you have "This user is ranked {{{1}}} on the list of Wikipedians by number of edits." and "This user is ranked {{{1}}} on the list of Wikipedians by articles created." I noticed that you are in fact at the impressively high 149th on the list for both. I am not sure if you meant to display them as they are and I thought I'd just point it out.
  • Second, while I'm here, enjoying your page, chatting like old friends, I wanted to say, the discussion at COIN is meant to just be determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest. You keep moving towards discussing the source, which I totally get, it's like the elephant in the room. But I think the discussion will be less long and lengthy if we just focus on COI and not any problems with the source. Still love the userpage (I really need to do a little with mine I think, all in due time). Well thanks a heap, I won't bring it up anymore :) Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Third. I am really sorry, I thought that this edit was made on the COIN. Makes what I am saying much less relevant. I feel stupid now. Sorry. Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Pabsoluterince Thank you for letting me know about the errors in my userbox collection (User:Piotrus/Babel). THey are 10 years old and clearly some code stopped working, I'll see if I find time to fix this later.
    Regardign staying on topic, I hear you, and I know I am sometimes guilty of focusing on the elephant. The issue has a nunber of dimensions, for example, while I don't believe the article is reliable (as I believe it is not only biased but contains a nunber of factual errors), there is some media coverage, and a 15-year old error is of some interest to those of us who want to document Wikipedia history. I am not suggesting that this incident should be censored from Wikipedia - but WP:UNDUE should be respected, and for almost everything, there are better sources than this very biased piece (significantly influenced by a site banned editor on a crusade to ruin the reputation of his enemies and recruit followers).
    And everything, including COI, has blurry boundaries - it is a fact that the article does mention me, and as it misquotes me and so on (have you read my letter to the editor here?) I am less then impartial here. Which is why I am fine for the most part leaving this entire set of issues to be discussed by the community, also per WP:BRD. I have no interest in edit warring, but I also don't think that there is any serious COI here to the point it is a bad practice for me to remove that link from the mainspace. If I am reverted, fine, let's discuss. But from where I stand, some editors - and we should note that Icewhiz socks are still likely active here, ready to pounce on any opening we give them, if they haven't already (newsflash in case you think I am jumping at shadows: recent Icewhiz sock almost became an admin) - are simply trying to silence the opposition, along the lines of "you were mentioned in this source, so you should simply leave this entire article, body and talk, and not to say anything". As others have pointed out, we have to be very wary of suggesting that best practices equal "do not edit or comment on topics where sources used name you" or such. There's COI, and there's censorship and variations of poisoning the well we have to be also very wary of (and that Haaret piece is exactly this - Icewhiz's most succesfull attempt to poison said well). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah this is a really interesting case. There's a lot of moving parts. Yes I did read your letter and I had some thoughts to share. Did you notice that they included one of your requests? From the 3rd of October to the 16th of October they included your quote about it being a fringe theory + wiki linking. Obviously they saw your letter.
I will say, more and more I am agreeing that the article shouldn't consider this a hoax. This is concerning me because policy would argue for us to summarise what the reliable sources say, in which case hoax would have to stay. How could you correct the record considering a reliable source has called it a hoax? Go to the RSN? It would require a non-trivial amount of OR prove that it is wrong. If you could convice people that it shouldn't be considered a hoax, does that prove that the source is unreliable in general or just this one scenario? Getting one article wrong couldn't possibly justify downgrading the sources reliability so it would have to be considered unreliable for just this article. Doesn't that defeat the point of a distinguishing a source as reliable, so that there is no need to constantly check up on individual claims in individual articles and perform OR? At what point is OR justified in pointing out the mistakes of a reliable source? It seems to undermine the whole system of having reliable sources, as it would justify all OR into the content of articles. We're not meant to do OR so how could we argue for it's use to discredit a single article/wording?
In it's current form, if we were not to discredit the article's claims, it is definitely due in most areas it has been. It becomes a lot less due if you consider it not a hoax. I can also see how the COI thing puts you in an uncomfortable position. From your perspective you're already being slandered by the article and think that it was made with unjournalistic integrity. You have a small voice arguing against a reliable source and now people are trying to silence you further on the topic, by arguing that you could be influenced by the passing negative comments, which pale in comparison to some of the claims that the article makes. I get that. May I suggest sock accounts? Just kidding. But yeah I think because this is such an unusual occurance (A reliable source that names a wikipedia editor, interviews them, slanders them, and then publishes very an article full of falsehoods and misrepresentations) it's just much less of a hassle to go along with what I believe to be the policy based course of action (whereby you are silenced on the topic). It kinda feels like I am letting you fall through the cracks a bit idk.
My form of COI, would only pertain to your editing of the article that mentions you, needing to require consensus before you removed any content/citations surrounding it. In my opinion not such a bad result considering how rare these articles are. Luckily for you though, there are plently of people disagree with me that it's a COI. I definitely feel more ambivalent to which way the case swings. If it were to swing in the way of COI I would suggest going to RSN with your own bombshell case against the source. Whether you could convince people of what you believe the appropriate action IDK. I am sorry for calling out your attempts to inform people about the source, I can see more clearly where they're coming from. Well that's my little ramble, I am sure there are things that I am misinterpreting, misrepresenting or generally getting wrong so please let me know. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pabsoluterince Oh, that's intresting - I didn't realize they amended the article at all (I hever received any direct reply to them).
Regarding the next issue, what to do when we know that a RS is wrong, I think we cannot say in wiki voice it is wrong as that would be OR. If there are other RS which contradict it, we can discuss that with atrribution (source A said this, but source B said something else). But if there is no source that disagrees, I think we can simply chose to ignore the error and not to repeat it (in fact, I think it is the responsible thing to do).
And to be clear, I think Haaretz is in general reliable, and even most of the reporting by the journalist in question seems fine - as long as it doesn't concern Poland (he repeated a summary of his claims in a more recent article [1] which in passing mentions some earlier coverage about how "a group of Polish nationalists won a victory on English Wikipedia and dominated narrative etc.", I contacted him to point out the errors, no reply. And on the topic of "unjournalistic integrity", earlier this year that very same journalist contacted me, interviewed me again about this... and the promised new interview didn't materialize. Not only he didn't reply to me, but per the link above, he republished the erroneous claims again despite knowning they are wrong (as I send him several emails about the errors and spoke about thek to him at lenght during the second interview). This really raises a question of how to deal with biased reporting... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Very interesting, such claims of dominating the narrative could pretty easily be seen as false (i think). I mean the hoax article really doesn't maintain the standards of a RS IMO. In terms of dealing with biased reporting, you could consider arguing that articles of this single journalist in a specific topic needs to be considered with his previous articles in mind. Put a little disclaimer on RSN? Idk. Pabsoluterince (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pabsoluterince Perhaps, having familairized yourself with this case by now, you could consider writing something for RSN? A proposal from an uninvolved party might have a chance of being less divisive than if I was to propose something (which would likely trigger a knee-jerk reaction from several folks along the lines of COI or whatever). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I will consider it. I would still want to do a thorough evaluation of all the claims presented in the article. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I just was reading some stuff and thought of something. Just because the editors adding the information to an article were not intending to mislead it could still be considered a hoax if the person who manufactured it was attempting to decieve. Then the page would simply be, information that was attempting to decieve, decieving Wikipedia editors and making it's way onto mainspace. That perspective shifts the question on the person who created the information, did they intend to decieve? In the case at hand, that would put the scrutiny on the actions of Maria Trzcińska. I know that doesn't change your opinion on the matter, though it does AGF on the part of wiki editors and more properly defines the debate IMO. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021Edit

Typo listEdit

Hi, Piotr; I will put a typo list here, to avoid cluttering the other discussion.

  • Q5. Yes, I am an practioner in the field of medicine --> a practitioner
  • Q10. Did volunteering on Wikipedia inspired you --> inspire
  • Q14. Volunteering for Wikipedia is stresful --> stressful
    • I would recommend editing Wikipedia to a collegue --> colleague
    • My collegues know I edit Wikipedia --> colleagues
    • If my collegues knew I edit Wikipedia, --> colleagues
    • Volunteering for Wikipedia is stresful --> stressful
  • Q15. Disagee --> Disagree
    • They are too busy with their professional responsibilites --> responsibilities
  • Q16. Writing in Wikipedia allows me togain a new perspective --> to gain
  • Q19. WikiProject Medicine, compared to other WikiProjects, is more succesfull --> successful

Ping me when you have significant changes, and I'll be happy to look again. Thanks for your effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:P2P FoundationEdit

Information icon Hello, Piotrus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:P2P Foundation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Hans (comic book)Edit

Updated DYK query.svgOn 30 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hans (comic book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Franco-Belgian comic book Hans had its title changed in Poland due to lingering ill-feeling toward Germany? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hans (comic book). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hans (comic book)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021Edit

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Volunteer (book)Edit

The article The Volunteer (book) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:The Volunteer (book) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)