Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
François Robere (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 246: | Line 246: | ||
::You are being patently and transparently absurd. One thing has nothing to do with another. You just tried to spam this into as many articles as you could, as part of a [[WP:POINT]]y provocation, in response to me suggesting that the material be merged to [[LGBT rights in Poland]]. |
::You are being patently and transparently absurd. One thing has nothing to do with another. You just tried to spam this into as many articles as you could, as part of a [[WP:POINT]]y provocation, in response to me suggesting that the material be merged to [[LGBT rights in Poland]]. |
||
::Another one of your disruptive actions which is more than deserving of a sanction.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 14:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |
::Another one of your disruptive actions which is more than deserving of a sanction.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 14:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} |
|||
{{poemquote| |
|||
A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area, barricaded off |
|||
- This isn't it. |
|||
Areas undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control |
|||
- This, isn't it. |
|||
Areas that have a reputation |
|||
for violence |
|||
and crime |
|||
- This isn't it. |
|||
Areas inhabited by a parallel society |
|||
- This? Isn't it. |
|||
A no-go area, where authorities have lost control |
|||
- This isn't it. |
|||
Areas where fishing |
|||
and overfishing |
|||
- Is that the one? |
|||
You are being patently and transparently absurd. |
|||
|''Volunteer Marek'', August 15th 2019{{br}}}} |
|||
(Transcribed by [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]])) |
Revision as of 15:32, 15 August 2019
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Name of this case
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.
I would like to suggest renaming this case to more accurate and neutral "Polish-Jewish history", as the current name is both incorrect and potentially biased. The current name is incorrect because it is more then just about antisemitism; it is also related to topics like anti-Polish sentiment (see ex. the early evidence/argument presented by User:My very best wishes here) and a similar section by User:MyMoloboaccount. The current name is potentially biased, as it gives undue weight to only one of the aspects of the case, and creates the impression that it is a conflict between anti-antisemitic or pro-antisemitic editors, or otherwise may unconsciously prejudice the parties, neutral editors and arbitrators themselves for or towards the parties. In other words, the current name seems to frame to case as potentially accusing some editors of antisemitism or of supporting antisemitic attitudes/sources, creating a presumption of guilt, from the very onset suggesting that some parties may be 'more correct' or siding with them is expected, and criticizing them would be incorrect, when this is just one of several dimensions of the case. I therefore urge the ArbCom to rename this case to a more neutral title which will both represent the scope of the dispute better, and avoid prejudicing anyone for or against the parties. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Piotrus the clerk team has notified the committee of this request. Regards, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion about this request has not yet received much attention, so I will give you my thoughts for the time being. There are some matters covered by Antisemitism in Poland that are not covered by the narrower Holocaust in Poland. However, Polish–Jewish history would be overbroad (and probably overlap with our other case, Eastern Europe).
- As a description of scope, Antisemitism in Poland seems neutral in that it captures all articles pertaining to events connected with Polish–Jewish relations in Poland. Articles that do not involve a degree of antisemitism do not seem to be involved in this case; you can let me know if I have that wrong.
- Generally, where questions like this are concerned, I think that the appearance of bias can be just as problematic as a biased title itself would be. However, in this specific case I do not see a problem. For these reasons, I would inclined against renaming the case pages. It is the committee's ordinary procedure to make a statement about the scope at the case-end, usually under the heading of "Locus of the dispute". There are sometimes small refinements to case scope at that point. Any similar need for refinement in this case could be satisfied when we open the Proposed Decision phase.
- Finally, I disagree with your argument that the case title casts a shadow over every editor who employs sources or introduces content about POV rather than any other. The case title (and scope) draws a line around Wikipedia's articles in terms of the time, geography, and people involved. It cannot diminish the views of one POV within those articles, nor can it be an assertion that the users editing the articles somehow take on the characteristics of the articles themselves. AGK ■ 08:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ping Volunteer Marek and K.e.coffman who commented on this very issue at evidence talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- When a party to this case considers sourced descriptions of antisemitism in Poland to merit accusations of bigotry,[2] and posits that as an editing rationale that such descriptions are "disgusting",[3], " gratuitous stereotyping and ethnic generalizations",[4] or "gratuitous and off topic Pole bashing" [5] - in the face of WP:RS coverage of antisemitism in Poland past and present - treatment antisemitism in Poland is clearly an issue here. Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Icewhiz, how about you save your histrionics and bullshit ([6] <-- this is NOT a "sourced description of antisemitism in Poland", [7] <-- you WP:COATRACKing irrelevant jabs at Poles as taunts is indeed pretty messed up, [8]<-- this is indeed stereotyping) for your "evidence" section and don't try to sprawl the nonsense as a way to get around the word limit? Or are you trying to derail yet another discussion with false accusations like you did at User:Paul Sieberts talk page, lest it might actually wind up being constructive? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- [9] - source says
"long anti-Semitic tradition of blaming Esterka"
.[1] [10] - not "my COATRACKING" - but in this case Haaretz's description (which makes a point academic sources make as well). [11] - stereotyping? Made by a literature researcher, based in Poland I might add, in the context of these figurines that are based on an antisemitic motif. Academic sources abound in the topic area in general, e.g. Modras, Ronald. The Catholic church and antisemitism: Poland, 1933-1939. Vol. 1. Psychology Press, 2000. or Blatman, Daniel. "Polish antisemitism and ‘Judeo‐communism’: Historiography and memory." East European Jewish Affairs 27.1 (1997): 23-43..Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)- Oh ffs, anyone not lazy enough to click that diff and look at the linked talk page [12] can clearly see that the dispute was over the nature of the legend. The very same source also discusses all the ways that the legend has been used in non-anti-semitic ways, in both Polish and Yiddish literature and art. You just plucked out a small part of the source to misrepresented it and for some reason thought that justified removing it entirely. My response on talk summarizes your gross misrepresentation of the source accurately. And how in the world a discussion of a historical legend constitutes "sourced description of antisemitism in Poland" (sic) is beyond me. This just illustrates your fevered imagination which sees "antisemitism in Poland" under every rock and pebble. You're making stuff up. Again. At any rate, why the hell are you trying to rehash this dispute on this particular talk page? Save it for your "evidence". This isn't a place for it. This is just you once again trying to derail a discussion - about renaming of the case - by bringing up irrelevant nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- That there are subsequent uses which are not antisemitic, do not contradict the antisemitic origin of this fable - which are covered in multiple academic WP:RSes. And in any case (antisemitic or not), the made up fable shouldn't have been presented as factual in an article on a historical figure. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- That is NOT what the dispute was about and it is NOT a "sourced description of antisemitism in Poland" as you claim except in some very loose sense. Likewise NO ONE here was trying to present the fable as factual. Neither I nor anyone else here reverted your edit. Neither I nor anyone else here claimed that the legend was real. Stop trying to straw man your way out of this. You keep presenting some edits which you made and which no one disputed and then pretend that somebody who's involved in this case objected. That. Is. Completely. False. One more time: this isn't the place to rehash these arguments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- That there are subsequent uses which are not antisemitic, do not contradict the antisemitic origin of this fable - which are covered in multiple academic WP:RSes. And in any case (antisemitic or not), the made up fable shouldn't have been presented as factual in an article on a historical figure. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oh ffs, anyone not lazy enough to click that diff and look at the linked talk page [12] can clearly see that the dispute was over the nature of the legend. The very same source also discusses all the ways that the legend has been used in non-anti-semitic ways, in both Polish and Yiddish literature and art. You just plucked out a small part of the source to misrepresented it and for some reason thought that justified removing it entirely. My response on talk summarizes your gross misrepresentation of the source accurately. And how in the world a discussion of a historical legend constitutes "sourced description of antisemitism in Poland" (sic) is beyond me. This just illustrates your fevered imagination which sees "antisemitism in Poland" under every rock and pebble. You're making stuff up. Again. At any rate, why the hell are you trying to rehash this dispute on this particular talk page? Save it for your "evidence". This isn't a place for it. This is just you once again trying to derail a discussion - about renaming of the case - by bringing up irrelevant nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- [9] - source says
- Hey Icewhiz, how about you save your histrionics and bullshit ([6] <-- this is NOT a "sourced description of antisemitism in Poland", [7] <-- you WP:COATRACKing irrelevant jabs at Poles as taunts is indeed pretty messed up, [8]<-- this is indeed stereotyping) for your "evidence" section and don't try to sprawl the nonsense as a way to get around the word limit? Or are you trying to derail yet another discussion with false accusations like you did at User:Paul Sieberts talk page, lest it might actually wind up being constructive? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
And I agree with Piotrus and k.e.coffman. Unless the ArbCom has already made up its mind as to the outcome without actually looking at the evidence, then Icewhiz's egregious behavior and battleground attitude, not to mention continual violations of BLP, is as much of an issue as anything else. Even "Polish-Jewish" relations is not entirely accurate as some of his edits concern Poles and Germans (for example whitewashing and minimizing Nazi crimes against Poles) and Poles and Soviets (for example whitewashing and minimizing Stalinist crimes against Poles).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Easiest way to deal with this would be just to name the case "Eastern Europe 3" or something. Also, please recall that ArbCom has had to rename past cases in the past precisely because of unfortunate choices of original names.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- EE3 or such might indeed be better. But it has been a week, I am worried more and more this will be a witch-hunt of 'let's crucify some antisemite and call it a job well done'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ The Jew's Daughter: A Cultural History of a Conversion Narrative, Lexington Books, Efraim Sicher, page 58, quote: The first mention is by Jan Długosz a hundred years later who begins a long anti-Semitic tradition of blaming Esterka for Casimir's extension of privileges to the Jews and promulgation of regulations that threatened vested interests.
- I too support name change of the case, as the current doesn't embrace fully the issues raised and predetermines guilt, manipulating narrative.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think the issue here is quite simple. Probably only two or three pages in this case are clearly related to (or about) the antisemitism in Poland. In particular, none of the articles and diffs mentioned in my Evidence tells anything about antisemitism in Poland, although it does include many diffs about the behavior by sides in this case. Yes, the case includes a number of pages about Jews in Poland (not only the Holocaust), but the conflict also involves many pages about ethnic Poles like here. Yes, Polish–Jewish history would be much better. Icewhiz named it better when he filed the case. There should be a serious reason for renaming to "antisemitism", and I do not see it at all. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the Holocaust in Poland (as filed by Icewhiz) and Antisemitism in Poland are different subjects. Yes, there are many pages in this case which belong to Holocaust in Poland committed by Nazi and their Polish and other collaborators. However, "Antisemitism in Poland" is an inappropriate and too narrowly defined title, although I can see some discussions there as well [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Edit break
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.
I was thinking mainly about the ease of application of any new restrictions that may come out of this case. For example, an admin saying "You are topic banned from Antisemitism in Poland" sounds ambiguous; compare with: "You are topic banned from Jewish-Polish history". The latter is more straightforward, IMO. Some articles that do not mention anti-semitism, but have experienced similar disputes, are Casimir III the Great and Esterka, his mythical Jewish mistress; Barbara Engelking, Polish scholar of the Holocaust. Articles in the Category:Jewish ghettos in Nazi-occupied Poland, although not necessarily related to "antisemitism in Poland", have seen extensive use of problematic sources and are part of the disputed area. A potentially adjusted name could also be a benefit in the BLP area. Those writing on Polish-Jewish history would be covered under the case in question, without admins having to figure out how antisemitism comes into this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are quite correct that the application of sanctions is best happening under a clear and descriptive case name. Once the breadth and content of our proposed decision becomes clear, I will consider whether we need to include an instruction that the case be renamed as part of the closure process. I do not believe it will become apparent whether a rename is required until after we finish sifting the evidence; the phase does not formally close for a few more days. Thank you for your comments. AGK ■ 22:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Now Antisemitism in Poland links to Racism in Poland. But a big part of the subject is religious, ecnomical or political, not racist. A recent academic book Intimate Violence "is a novel social-scientific explanation of ethnic violence and the Holocaust. It locates the roots of violence in efforts to maintain Polish and Ukrainian dominance rather than in anti-Semitic hatred or revenge for communism." https://www.amazon.com/Intimate-Violence-Anti-Jewish-Pogroms-Holocaust/dp/1501715259
- If any anti-Semitism were racist, so anti-Polish (and broader anti-Easterneuropean) steretypes used in this Wikipedia are racist so a number of leading Wikipedia enforcers should be topic-banned as racists.Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring: Volunteer Marek reported by User:Icewhiz
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.
Just wanted the Committee to be made aware that this was happening. El_C 21:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
(If this is helpful, please consider this a request to add the following as late evidence.) What happened between Icewhiz (IW) and Volunteer Marek (VM) at the article in the ANEW report above (Islamophobia in Poland) has happened elsewhere. IW created Islamophobia in Poland on Aug 3. On Aug 5–6, VM removed large chunks of the article [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], added tags with the edit summaries like Who is this? Like three people and a dog?
[20] and given that the same editor inserted false information (with a source!) into the article, we need to verify this info
[21], and posted a 3RR warning on IW's talk page [22]. Talk:Islamophobia in Poland speaks for itself.
That article may not be in the scope of this case, but the same thing happened at Rafał Pankowski, an article about a Polish sociologist and political scientist who received an Anti-Defamation League human rights award honoring people who fight antisemitism in Europe. IW created it on May 19. Later that day, VM made a series of removals with edit summaries like BLP UNDUE, just silly
[23] and da f is this?
[24]. In 24hrs, VM made one, two, three deletions. On the second day of the article's existence, Icewhiz started the first talk page thread: Talk:Rafał Pankowski#Recent edits. VM's first reply: ... Come on, who you're trying to kid? ...
[25]. It goes on from there. By the fourth day, an admin applied 1RR DS to the article [26].
Same at Jew with a coin, an article IW created on May 20. The same day, VM deleted content with edit summaries like nonsense
[27], bad grammar
[28], most likely a self promo
[29], rmv POV, rmv gratuitous stereotyping and ethnic generalizations
[30], and POV COATRACK
[31]. IW started the first talk page thread at Talk:Jew with a coin#Recent edits. It goes from there, and the talk page speaks for itself.
IW posted a thread at VM's talk page called "Hounding" on April 23, asking him to stop doing this sort of thing. [32]
I looked at VM's latest article creations (Iwaniec Uprising, Kacper Miłaszewski, Aleksander Smolar, 2018–19 education workers' strikes in the United States, and Jafta Masemola) to see if it went both ways. IW only edited one of them, Iwaniec Uprising, a year ago: [33] [34]. – Levivich 02:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz's addition of false info
Since we seem to be back to adding "evidence" (why are you here Levivich?) then let's add the following:
In this edit Icewhiz added (copied) text which was clearly false and not supported by the source. The text, which is about a marginal non-notable "politician" from a fringe party submitting a request to the Ministry of Justice to delegalize Muslim faith organizations, is:
In October of that year, his (Banasiak's) request was denied, however, after the "positive and supportive" intervention of the Ministry of Justice, the case was to be reopened and reassessed
There is absolutely NOTHING to support that in the source. Here is what the source actually says (my translation, 10th paragraph if you want to confirm with Google translate):
"The ministry confirmed that its workers met with Banasiak. Its press bureau however presents the course of the meeting differently (than Banasiak). It stated: "the claim that the ministry's experts declared their willingness to help in efforts to delegalize Muslim faith organizations is false. During the meeting the experts only affirmed that, according with procedures they will analyze the documents submitted by Pawel Banasiak. After analyzing these documents, the Ministry of Justice did not find any reason to undertake any actions (to support Banasiak)". The ministry's press bureau added that "the freedom of religion is guaranteed by the (Polish) constitution".[1]
In other words, the source says THE OPPOSITE of what Icewhiz inserted into the article.
There's further falsification in the same edit. The inserted text states:
Banasiak's actions, as well as the Ministry of Justice's "supportive decision", were both concerning to the Polish Tatars, as well as Rafał Pankowski
The source is an article from Vice [35]. This one's in English so it's even easier to verify that it says nothing like it. There is ABSOLUTELY no mention of "Polish Tatars" in the article. There is NOTHING in it about Ministry of Justice, much less anything about its "supportive decision".
Note that in both cases quotation marks are used which falsely indicates that these are direct quotes from the sources. They're not. They're falsifications of the source (WP:HOAX anyone?).
This is just false false false false. There really is no other way for me to express that. It's false. That's it. False. And somebody tacked a source at the end to fake-source it.
Icewhiz inserted this info into the article. When asked WHY he added that in, he has refused to answer.
There's only two possibilities here:
Possibility 1 - Icewhiz verified the sources, saw that the info was NOT in them, but decided to include the false text into the article anyway because it fit his POV. This would indeed constitute another WP:HOAX pushed by Icewhiz. Possibility 2 - Icewhiz failed to verify the source and just copied-pasted it without checking because it neatly fit into his POV.
Now, assuming good faith, I expect that the true explanation is Possibility 2. Icewhiz just copy-pasted text which fit his POV and didn't check whether the source actually supported it. Normally this would be cause for a short block or topic ban, but not an indef ban the way that pushing HOAXes/Possibility 1 would be. However, given that Icewhiz has (falsely) accused me of "not verifying" sources [36] and screamed bloody murder about it, this once again illustrates the double standards that Icewhiz edits under. Put it simply, he's regularly guilty of what he falsely accuses others of. Any sanctions on him should take this cynical approach into account.
As to Leviv's accusations, I've already addressed this accusation in my evidence. I've been editing this topic area since 2005. Icewhiz has followed me to far more article than vice-versa. In fact, Icewhiz has clearly looked through my contributions from 8-10 years ago and went back to restart edit wars and disputes. And what exactly is suppose to be wrong with the edit summary "bad grammar" or "BLP UNDUE, just silly" or any of the other ones for that matter?
And yes it's true that Icewhiz created this article. AFTER the proposal for such an article came up at Talk:Racism in Poland [37] where I was involved!!! So why WOULDN'T I be interested in this article? I was part of the conversation that led to its creation ffs! This is just insanely silly.
But let's put that aside. If you see somebody putting blatantly false information into an article, and pretending that sources support it when they don't, what are you suppose to do? Leave it in? Say nothing? No. You remove it. That's not "hounding". That's actually improving the encyclopedia.
Hey User:Levivich, what's worse, inserting false info into Wikipedia articles and pretending to source it, or pointing out that someone has done that? I mean, if the second one is worse - which it appears from your comment you believe - then OH MY GOD should Icewhiz be sanctioned for "hounding" Poeticbent and accusing him of the very thing! Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
(also, whenever somebody claims stuff like "XYZ speaks for itself" that's really a way of saying "I got nothing, but I'm gonna pretend there's something really bad going on". It's a rhetorical trick which hopes that readers will be too lazy to actually click and check for themselves) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Icewhiz
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.
In regards to Iwaniec Uprising (over a year ago) - I got to it via NPP (back then - I was more active on NPP) - ticked it as approved, added standard flags given article state, made a very minor improvements, and then moved on. VM indeed shows up on most articles and major edits I do to existing articles when they are related to certain topics. A very limited set of examples (diff count limits - containing only articles that VM never edited before) is in my Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek's harrassment of Icewhiz) , but it is much wider - as Levivich points out.Icewhiz (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- In regards to the wall of text by VM above and below - the content VM is discussing was copied (diff with clear copy attribution) from Islam in Poland(perma version) - into an early an initial version of the Islamophobia article. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- VM's contributions to Islamophobia in Poland are various tags, and removals such as:
- [38] - content sourced to Central and Eastern European Migration Review, Washington Post, BBC.
- [39] - content sourced to Gender, Place & Culture, Patterns of Prejudice (x2 articles), Central and Eastern European Migration Review.
- [40] - content sourced to Patterns of Prejudice, Central and Eastern European Migration Review, Palgrave Macmillan book (section on Islamophobia in Poland), International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
- [41] content sourced to Patterns of Prejudice (x2), Central and Eastern European Migration Review.
- [42] - content sourced to Patterns of Prejudice.
- [43] - content sourced to Patterns of Prejudice.
- [44] - content sourced to Patterns of Prejudice.
- VM has added no content (other than tags). Whereas academic journal articles on Islamophobia in Poland treat the content removed as relevant to Polish Islamophobia (for instance the size and makeup of Poland's Muslim population (removed here and here), or the re-purposing of old antisemitic tropes into Islamophobic discourse, or Islamophobia expressions being linked to a rise in xenophobia and antisemitism) - VM seems to think this is an "off-topic" COATRACK. On Wikipedia we are supposed to follow sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- VM's contributions to Islamophobia in Poland are various tags, and removals such as:
- Yes, we know it was copied. WHY did you copy it? As you yourself have pointed out on numerous occasions - hell, you got GizzyCatBella topic banned with this argument - if YOU put it in, YOU are responsible. Did you verify the sources when you inserted it in? Yes? Then ... WHY did you put it in as it's clearly false? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- And since you're trying to predispose people against reading my comment by calling it "a wall of text", let me be succinct:
- You inserted false info into an article.
- The source which was used to pretend-cite the false text said opposite of what the text you inserted said.
- You have refused to provide an explanation for why you did this.
- In this very ArbCom case, as well as in other instances, you've tried very hard to get people sanctioned for allegedly "failing to verify" sources, or for restoring other people's older versions. By the standards you set yourself, you should be sanctioned. If you had just said "sorry, I screwed up" right of the bat then it wouldn't have become a big deal, but it's your WP:TENDENTIOUS refusal to admit you did anything wrong that exemplifies ADDITIONAL problems.
- Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Having re-reviewed the source - Who wants to ban the Koran in Poland, 5.9.2017 Rzeczpospolita (newspaper)) - most of the content copied (and not restored after VM challenged) - is actually well supported by the cited newspaper piece. AFAICT - there is one fragment that should've been attributed in a better fashion. There was a legal initiative by Wolność to ban Islam, the Justice ministry met with Wolność politicians, and human right groups - e.g. Rafał Pankowski of "Never Again" Association were deeply concerned with this initiative and such meetings taking place. This received coverage in national Polish media. Icewhiz (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
is actually well supported by the cited newspaper piece
Complete and utter horseshit. No, it is not. Stop lying. Because that's EXACTLY what you're doing here. There's not a damn thing in there about:- "positive and supportive" intervention of the Ministry of Justice"
- "case being reopened and reassessed"
- As outlined above the article says the opposite. It's mind boggling that you think you can get away with such a shameless misrepresentation of sources, and continue to insist on your own WP:HOAX falsifications even when it's been outlined in detail about how it is false.
- And you want to show us where the Vice (the one in English) source [45] says ANYTHING about "Polish Tatars" or just Tatars in general??? You want to show us where that source talks about the Polish Ministry of Justice??? It's. Not. In. There.
- Icewhiz, thank you for perfectly illustrating your WP:TENDENTIOUS nature here. Not only did you insert false information into an article, not only did you fake-source it, but you are now here, shamelessly still claiming that the source backs the false information. It's like you think editors and admins are so gullible and lazy that they will not click on the link and check for themselves. You are taking what *might* have been a simple - though serious - mistake on your part, and because you appear to be unable to admit that you did something wrong, exacerbating your initial disruptive edit and making it much much much worse.
- Seriously, how can anyone be expected to edit collaboratively with someone who will just sit there and make blatantly false claims with a straight face?
- Am I wrong? If so please point out where #1 and #2 are covered in the source. Please point out the relevant parts of the Vice article about the Tatars or the Ministry of Justice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- And Icewhiz, this: "Having re-reviewed the source" is pretty much an admission, or at least as close as we're likely to get out of you, that you only now bothered to actually look at the source, three days after you put the false info into the article and claimed the sources supported it. Fail to WP:V, right? Something which you yourself believe to be sanction worthy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Having re-reviewed the source - Who wants to ban the Koran in Poland, 5.9.2017 Rzeczpospolita (newspaper)) - most of the content copied (and not restored after VM challenged) - is actually well supported by the cited newspaper piece. AFAICT - there is one fragment that should've been attributed in a better fashion. There was a legal initiative by Wolność to ban Islam, the Justice ministry met with Wolność politicians, and human right groups - e.g. Rafał Pankowski of "Never Again" Association were deeply concerned with this initiative and such meetings taking place. This received coverage in national Polish media. Icewhiz (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- You guys should get a room… — JFG talk 18:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- It stopped being funny when Icewhiz made false extremist accusations against me which should have - and normally do - resulted in an immediate indef block. But instead the ArbCom twiddled its thumbs. Those thumbs must be mighty sore by now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- You guys should get a room… — JFG talk 18:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek 1RR violation
Just wanted the Committee to be made aware that Volunteer Marek has violated 1RR on History of the Jews in Poland. Some background is available here and here. I felt hesitant to block since my offer to him to self-revert was mistakenly issued after that was no longer possible, otherwise I would have blocked for 24 hours — being careless is not a reason I'd be inclined to readily accept for this dispute. And since I've already been lenient once before for his technical 3RR violation noted in the sections above, I'm feeling more than a little uneasy about this. Anyway, my hope is that the Arbitration case will be closed soon, so that those of us dealing with the dispute on the article space would have further guidance in which to operate. El_C 21:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I made a mistake - I forgot it was under 1RR and the 1RR notice does not show up when making edits via tablet. I would have been happy to self-revert if notified in a timely manner (Francois Robere also broke 1RR on the same article, self-reverted, but then Icewhiz came back and performed a revert on Francois' behalf - if workshop was still open then a sensible proposal would be to apply a joint-1RR restriction on the two of them, since they've reverted on each other's behalf on like half a dozen articles in just the past ten days). As for the "technical 3RR violation noted above" - there was no such violation, there was Icewhiz, after not having edited for 8 hours, immediately jumping in when I began eiting the article so that my edits would be "non-consecutive". However, all my edits were such that they could've been done in one edit. El_C, please don't take Icewhiz's or his friends' words for it - verify yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think I've been quite lenient with you, so I'm not sure what else you expect me to do. El_C 02:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not criticizing you. I simply provided context here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've asked you to stop casting ASPERSIONS just yesterday.[46] You throw accusations left and right, but when others reply in kind you play coy or offended.[47][48][49] If you want to be rude, at least drop the pretense. François Robere (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think I've been quite lenient with you, so I'm not sure what else you expect me to do. El_C 02:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek continued hounding
While evidence and the workshop has closed, I'd like to note that WP:HOUNDing has continued afterwards (as pointed out by Levivich above). This has included:
- jumping into newly created Islamophobia in Poland - diff and challenging material from top-notch academic journals.
- Jewish ghettos in Europe - VM's first ever edit to the article follows my own.
- Trawniki concentration camp - VM's first ever edit to the article follows my own.
- On 13 August - diff - Volunteer Marek jumped into Disruption of Holocaust conference in Paris created less than 24 hours previously. At the time of Volunteer Marek's edit, the sole links to the article in main space were Antisemitism in 21st-century France and Frédérique Vidal - neither of which Volunteer Marek edited previously.
Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is not hounding. Icewhiz does not WP:OWN this topic area. Most of Icewhiz's edits, as shown explicitly in evidence are problematic. Some of these edits are "series" - he basically performs the same edit on multiple articles at once, either removing something positive about Poland or adding something negative about Poland and Poles to as many articles as will fit. Hence, if I'm objecting to a particular edit on one article, it's natural that I'd also object to the very same edit when made on another article (this is kind of Icewhiz's way of trying to circumvent 3RR too - after his edits get reverted in one place and he can't put it back in, he'll pick another article to continue his edit warring). The Trawniki article is a perfect example of that (he's not telling you that he made the exact same edit to about half a dozen articles, most of which were ones which either HE never edited before (while I have) or ones which have obviously been on my watchlist for a long time). Icewhiz's claims about the nature of the edits at Islamophobia is false as well - he knows damn well, that the issue isn't about "top-notch journals", but his attempts to WP:COATRACK the article (turning the article about Islamophobia into one about anti-semitism) as well as his stubborn refusal to properly attribute some of the more controversial claims. Because he cannot get his way on merits, because he is 100% incapable of convincing anyone that doesn't already agree with him (and supports him - specifically Francois Robere) of his position, and because he seems completely incapable of compromise, he runs around claiming he's being "hounded. NO. He's followed ME to a whole bunch of articles and now he's projecting. His complaint boils down to "why can't I push my POV in peace?!?"
- I'm getting really sick and tired of Icewhiz's repeated personal attacks, insinuations, smears, and WP:GAMEing. He projects his own tendentious editing onto others and engages in "pre-emptive" accusations. When he's caught inserting false information into an article with fake sourcing, he runs to admins to complain about some imagined transgression of mine so as to divert attention from his own wrongdoing. Etc. He started off this case by making disgusting accusations against me and the inaction by the committee has apparently only served to enable and embolden him. This is way past out of hand. You can look at his recent edit history, or his entire edit history in this topic area for the past three years to see that this is a straight forward case of an editor on some WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusade with a clear WP:AGENDA. And I'm not the only one who's noticed that. This is bad enough in itself, but the way he goes about it - smearing and attacking editors and sources, including BLPS, that don't fit in with his POV - is atrocious and makes it so much worse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Problematic edits continue
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.
Unfortunately the case didn't manage to stop others from making continued edits that seem to serve no other purpose but to incite and enflame interaction with others
For example, Icewihiz creates an article[50] loaded with extreme statements and cherrypicked statements presenting in the worst way imaginable Poland and Poles
- Polish government is named as nationalist regime that tries to shift light of Holocaust from Poles to Germans(!)
- Antisemitism is named as character of Polish religious identity atholicism practiced in Poland and diaspora often differentiates between "us" and "them", with antisemitism being a feature of cultural identity (this is actually named as part of antipolish stereotype in some studies)
However looking at the pattern in previous articles and edits that were done in similar, I am not surprised by this. The article is written in a way that is bound to provoke less reserved users into heated debates and disputes, and at this point seems to have been purposefully loaded with as many controversial statement as possible.The extreme statements pushed in the edits and articles are presented in a way that presents Holocaust as some kind of German-Polish endeavour, information about Nazi atrocities against Poles is removed, as is about Nazi occupation of Poland, and Poles are presented as having antisemitism as their cultural identity.If this was not Icewhiz's intention, then unfortunately,it hard not to perceive these edits as such.
As Joanna Michlic(an author Icewhiz quoted several times when she was extremely critical of some Polish historians) writes in her book Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present: "This book also opposes an attitude that can be found in popular collective Jewish memory that that presents Polish anti-Semitism as “unique” or “uniquely extreme,” as equal to or “even more severe” than Nazi anti-Semitism, with its full-scale genocidal solution to the "Jewish question". Editors on Wikipedia should be careful not to repeat such stereotyping(even unwillingly).
Unfortunately the continued edits about Poland and Polish society that constantly present the most extreme claims and statements such as describing (in context of World War 2 Nazi racist atrocities) the Holocaust as mainly German(excluding Polish role)[51], trying to describe 13th century Poland as state motivated by racism[52], n aming genocide of Poles "limited action" by Germans, and writing that when describing Poland in WW and writing about Polish victims of Nazi Germany "Poles should appear last"[53], or comparing Polish resistance against Nazis to SS and Wehrmacht[54] seem to indicate a troubling lack of neutrality on the subject and unwillingness to pursue in dialog and edits in constructive, noninflammatory manner.
We of course all have our biases, but editors should be able to identify extreme positions, and the above sadly look ones easy to spot.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Disruption of Holocaust conference in Paris -the created article very closely follows its cited sources (all of which are on the event) - an academic book chapter, writing by academics, and mainstream press (French, Swiss, Israeli, UK, US) - which use this language in relation to an attack on an academic conference in Paris. MyMoloboaccount, going as far as saying this is "bound to provoke less reserved users" - seems to have issues with Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Haaretz, Le Monde, Washington Post, The Independent, etc. In fact the rejection of mainstream media and academia by a small group of users here - is a symptom of the problem here. Outside of far-right sources (which we should not be using as a source) - this is the way this is covered.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Molobo, the problem is not only with "agenda", it's with WP:VERIFIABILITY. You, for example, push particular agendas all over, but your sourcing is often lacking. For example, one particular statement in Racism in Poland now has no less than 13 sources attached (!),[55] of which only 2-3 actually support it. Instead of revising your sourcing practices, you just keep piling more and more sources... and then you repeatedly accuse other editors, who follow RS, of anything from "flaming" to Holocaust revisionism. François Robere (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with that article is that, aside from being written in a completely lop-sided manner, it simply doesn't past WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. It's a vehicle for Icewhiz's persistent and continuous attempts to WP:COATRACK as much negative info about Poland into Wikipedia as possible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek - continued hounding 14 August - LGBT
Additional WP:HOUNDING following closure of evidence and workshop:
- Existing articles (without prior edits by VM): 18:25, 14 August 2019 (1 minute after my edit), 20:06, 14 August 2019.
- New article: LGBT-free zone, created 07:29 14 August 2019. VM - 20:13, 14 August 2019. At the time of VM's edit it was not linked to any article VM edited previously in mainspace.
I will note that VM's edits during this case - to the newly created LGBT-free zone and Islamophobia in Poland exhibit issues with mainstream sources (NEWSORG for the former (new topic), and academic sources for the latter) covering the brand (and consequences thereof) of Catholic-nationalism advocated by the PiS party in Poland - and not just issues with antisemitism specifically.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- ONE MORE FREAKIN' TIME. Stop. Falsely. Accusing. Me. Of. "Hounding". This is well into WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS territory. Yes, you created some very problematic and WP:POINTy articles. Yes, I edited them. Both these articles are in a topic area which I've been editing for FOURTEEN YEARS. Both of these articles are chuck full of POV and WP:COATRACK problems and other issues which you put in there. Just because you put your POV into a newly created article that doesn't mean you WP:OWN it, nor does it mean that Wikipedia policies cease to apply... because you think so, nor does it mean that other editors are not allowed to fix these problems you've created. And falsely accusing other editors of "hounding" isn't some magic pixie dust that you can sprinkle on your own disruptive and tendentious edits to "protect them" from regular editing by other editors.
- Instead of making false accusations, continually insulting other editors, creating WP:POINTy content and comments which are obviously meant to provoke others, why not try - just once, just once - WORKING WITH OTHERS??? You know, collaborate? I actually think there's some good content in the LGBT-free-zones article, it's just that it doesn't belong in that article, it should be in LGBT rights in Poland. If you weren't so insistent on playing some PvP game on Wikipedia and didn't have your WP:BATTLEGROUND mode on 100% of the time, we could actually collaborate constructively on how to improve the existing content and how best to include it in LGBT Rights in Poland. Instead, you appear to be dead set on turning this into yet another drama fest. That's WP:NOTHERE Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I should also add that I think I'm showing extreme patience here with your WP:POINTy behavior. For example, the highly POV article you recently created [56], under a blatantly POV title (until Francois Robere (who else?!? ;)) moved it for you to something more neutral sounding [57]) pretty obviously does not pass WP:NEVENT, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARTEST. That much is obvious I think to any one with an iota of detachment from this particular dispute. However, I did not actually nominate it for deletion, even though it clearly should be, precisely so you wouldn't have an excuse to run around screaming about "hounding!". Instead I've brought up the issue on the talk page [58] and said we can wait a month or so to see if any new coverage of this event pops up (there really hasn't been any since the immediate aftermath). Well... a lot of good that did. Here you are, again, with your invective and hyperbole, pretending like the fact that someone disagrees with you - that Wikipedia policies disagree with you! - is some kind of horrendous crime against nature. It's not. It's following Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, the article about "LGBT-free zones" in Poland that Icewhiz created said: "In Kielce, near where Nazis murdered minorities including gays and Jews and where the killing continued after the war in the 1946 Kielce pogrom, activists held the first LGBT+ parade in the city in July 2019.", sourced to a Washington Post article (free reprint) about Kielce's
first-ever LGBT+ rights march
, headlinedPolish cities and provinces declare ‘LGBT-free zones’ as government ramps up ‘hate speech’
, which says:Nearby, the Nazis exterminated Jews and other minorities – including gay people – during World War II. But the killing did not stop with the end of the war. Dozens of Jews were murdered in Kielce in a pogrom on 4 July 1946. The killings convinced many of Poland’s remaining Jews who had survived the Nazi Holocaust that there was no future for them in the country.
You deleted this sentence with the edit summary "blatant coatracking". How is this sentence coatracking? Icewhiz reverted your deletion, pointing out it's in the source, and then you tried turning the whole article into a redirect with the edit summary "not notable ...", which has now been reverted (thankfully). This is all within 24 hours of the article's creation. This is the umpteenth article of Icewhiz's where the first thread on the talk page is Icewhiz trying to start a discussion about one of your edits: Talk:LGBT-free zone#Recent edits. You are, in fact, hounding Icewhiz, on a daily basis, and should stop. – Levivich 06:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- It's coatracking because the article isn't about WW2 or the Nazis. The Nazis murdered gays and Jews... pretty much everywhere. What do LGBT rights in 21st century have to do with that? I am NOT hounding Icewhiz. I've been editing these very topics for very long time. If Icewhiz doesn't want other editors discussing and modifying his edits then perhaps he should refrain from making WP:POINTy, disruptive edits in the first place. Please stop making false accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Washington Post thought they were related! Please stop taking a machete to every article he creates–at least until this Arbcom case is over. How about next time, you start the first talk page thread? – Levivich 06:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that a newspaper mentions something does not automatically mean the content is encyclopedic. The Washington Post is not writing an encyclopedia article. This is at best necessary not sufficient reason for inclusion. We have policies - such as WP:COATRACK - which Washington Post doesn't.
- And as I point out above already - how about Icewhiz stops making WP:POINTy and disruptive edits... at least until this ArbCom case is over. He went quiet for awhile, but then when he realized that the ArbCom was't going to sanction him yet, he went on a POV spree with these articles. Content which is against wikipedia's policies *should* get "machete'd" (sic). And I did start the first talk page thread!!! Here. You're simply incorrect in that respect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Your talk page post began,
Aside from being written in a tendentious over-the-top POV manner ...
May I suggest for next time the following format:I disagree with [text] because [reason].
– Levivich 06:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- You keep coming up with these request. The article *IS* written in a tendentious over-the-top POV manner. I got to ask you again Levivich, what's worse? Writing a tendentious over-the-top POV article as part of some WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusade, or pointing out that someone is doing that? This concern of yours is the same as the one above where you appear to think that it's okay to insert blatantly false information into an article with fake sourcing, just because it fits your POV, as Icewhiz did here, but if someone points out that is what someone did.... oh my god call the police and the firemans, how horrible, how dare they!?!?!
- You keep highlighting your minor disagreements with wording but refuse to actually criticize your friend for serious violations of Wikipedia policy. Don't shoot the messenger.
- Look. This has been going on for far too long. Icewhiz should've been indef banned when he fabricated quotations to smear a BLP [59]. Icewhiz should've been indef banned when he used far-right anti-semitic sources just because they happened to support the POV he was pushing [60]. Icewhiz should've been indef banned when he wrote half a dozen attack pages on historians who don't agree with his POV [61]. Icewhi should've been topic-banned when he made provocative and insulting comments to other editors which taunted them on an ethnic basis [62]. Icewhiz should've been blocked when he dishonestly insisted on one set of standards for other editors ("you have to use only high quality peer reviewed journal articles from a list pre-approved by me!!!!"), while he himself violated these injunctions repeatedly ("I get to use any trashy garbage source I like! It's sourced! It's sourced! How dare you remove it!??") [63] (not actual quotations). Icewhiz should've been banned from WP:AE when he participated in over fifty reports in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner. Icewhiz should've been blocked when he contacted an admin off wiki and tried to get another user (Malik Shabazz) banned for a topic ban violation, even though he knew damn well that the edits he was block-shopping were made several weeks before the ban was imposed. He should've been indef banned when he requested this case with unfounded smears and attacks against me [64] which he STILL hasn't bothered to support, and for which he STILL hasn't apologized. Icewhiz should've been topic banned or indef'd when he inserted blatantly false information into an article with fake sourcing, [this was just the latest instance.
- But apparently, the thing that really concerns YOU is that Volunteer Marek wrote " Come on, who you're trying to kid?" in an edit summary. Really? Come on man.
- Admins dropped the ball on this one. That's why we're here. Wait, no. That's why we got this case. The reason we are here now, a month after we were suppose to have PD's is because the ArbCom can't seem to find that ball dropped by the admins. And it's just enabling disruptive behavior by Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Your talk page post began,
- The Washington Post thought they were related! Please stop taking a machete to every article he creates–at least until this Arbcom case is over. How about next time, you start the first talk page thread? – Levivich 06:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's coatracking because the article isn't about WW2 or the Nazis. The Nazis murdered gays and Jews... pretty much everywhere. What do LGBT rights in 21st century have to do with that? I am NOT hounding Icewhiz. I've been editing these very topics for very long time. If Icewhiz doesn't want other editors discussing and modifying his edits then perhaps he should refrain from making WP:POINTy, disruptive edits in the first place. Please stop making false accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, the article about "LGBT-free zones" in Poland that Icewhiz created said: "In Kielce, near where Nazis murdered minorities including gays and Jews and where the killing continued after the war in the 1946 Kielce pogrom, activists held the first LGBT+ parade in the city in July 2019.", sourced to a Washington Post article (free reprint) about Kielce's
In regards to the tirade above and in particular - "creating WP:POINTy content and comments which are obviously meant to provoke others"
- I don't think LGBT rights in Poland is a particularly provocative topic. If we ignore right-wing press inside of Poland, mainstream WP:NEWSORGs (BBC, WaPo, NYT, Telegraph, etc. as well as liberal press in Poland - e.g. Gazeta Wyborcza) - are really all covering the issue in the same manner. However, VM's comments that this content is somehow meant to "provoke" has resonated with a quote I just saw in the Financial Times as I'm trying to expand the article:
“In the past [LGBT people] lived in silence. What is happening now is a provocation, it’s not necessary,” said Jarek, an engineer from Plock, as he watched the marchers gather. “Poles don’t want this. We’re a Catholic country. What is this? . . . They are trying to provoke us.”
Poland’s ruling party fuels anti-LGBT sentiment ahead of elections, FT, 11 August 2019. Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Icewhiz. Stop lying. I never said that talking about LGBT rights in Poland was a "provocative topic". In fact I said the opposite - I said that the content should be added to LGBT rights in Poland. What's provocative is the comments YOU make in these discussions and how YOU try to present the content. And now you come here with some quote about "LGBT people living in silence" and are trying to fucking blame me for that, or equate it to the fact that I objected to your little anti-Polish crusade??? Where the fuck do you get off with that? How the hell are you not indef banned from this site? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz WP:POINT provocations
Icewhiz started the article LGBT-free zone, about some municipalities in Poland doing stupid shitty things. Essentially some local politicians making anti-LGBT declarations. There is some good content in the article but overall it's not notable. Stupid shitty politicians say stupid shitty things all the time. In US, we have had a series of states pass insane anti-abortion laws. Wikipedia doesn't even have articles about them. Because on their own they're not notable (as long as they don't go to SCOTUS). Same thing here. But hey, this is Icewhiz chance to write another "hey look at how bad the Poles are!!!" articles that he's been mass producing lately, while the ArbCom case stalled.
So I raise the notability objection and I propose to merge the content (which, like I said, some is good) to LGBT rights in Poland. Icewhiz removes the tag within minutes, literally while I was getting a drink from the kitchen, [65] and THEN has the audacity to lecture me on the talk page [66] about "not starting proper discussion". Obviously if he hadn't immediately started edit warring to remove the tag I would have started such a discussion.
If this isn't a textbook example of disingenous, bad faithed, WP:GAMEing, I don't know what is.
But hey, it's Icewhiz, so it actually gets worse.
Now that he knows I think this article is non-notable, he starts spamming it into as many articles as he can think of: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]. Now, on some of these, like Homophobia, or maybe even Bialystok *some* of this content belongs in there. But the rest... it's gratuitous.
"Oh, you don't think my article is notable? Well, I'm gonna stuff the same thing into as many places as I can, just to piss you off!" You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that he is not being deliberately provocative.
But hey, it's Icewhiz, so it actually gets worse.
Icewhiz, even tried to stuff this into ... the article No-go zone [74]. What is the article on the No-go zone about? It's about, quote: A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups.
What. The. Hey. Does. This. Have. To. Do. With some stupid politicians in Poland being assholes about LGBT rights?
That clearly shows that these edits were made solely with the purpose of provocation, and were not indented seriously. Otherwise, he wouldn't have done something as ridiculous as adding this content to the No-go zone article.
This is of course par-for-the-course for Icewhiz. Over the past few weeks he's gone on a tear and most of his edits are of the similar problematic and disruptive nature. The topic ban is three years over due.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- To be precise - diff - @Oranjelo100: added the content initially to No-go area. However, Oranjelo100 did not provide sources there - so I copied over the (adapted) short lead from LGBT-free zone. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I will note that I started Talk:No-go area#LGBT-free zone with sources explicitly connected the two. I also want to point out two false statements by VM in the tirade above:
- I have not edited this topic for 3 years. My first edit to enwiki was in 2017 (and it took me a while to get involved with Poland - circa 2018 IIRC). This seems like a conduct accusation. I will also note the personal attacks in: diff.
- VM seems to think I know what he's doing (getting a drink from kitchen) or create articles to provoke him (in fact - I got to LGBT-free zone from Gazeta Polska where this was preexisting and I thought it would be interesting to write up). Interestingly I am not only psychic but also prescient - as while VM's first edit was at 20:13 14 August and second edit blanking+redirecting at 05:51, 15 August in
"Now that he knows I think this article is non-notable, he starts spamming it into as many articles as he can think of"
VM lists (first three diffs): 14:45, 14 August, 14:44, 14 August, 14:44, 14 August 2019 (particular regions declaring themselves "LGBT-free zones") - which pre-date VM's involvement in the article.
- Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to blame other editors for your actions. You added the text here. And the notion is transparently ridiculous. The No-Go Zone article is about:
- A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups
- This isn't it.
- Areas undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty
- This isn't it.
- Areas that have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there
- This isn't it.
- Areas that are inhabited by a parallel society that have their own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors
- This isn't it.
- A no-go area, a region where the ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce the rule of law [75]
- This isn't it.
- Areas where fishing is made illegal due to overfishing
- Is that the one that links the two topics together???
- You are being patently and transparently absurd. One thing has nothing to do with another. You just tried to spam this into as many articles as you could, as part of a WP:POINTy provocation, in response to me suggesting that the material be merged to LGBT rights in Poland.
- Another one of your disruptive actions which is more than deserving of a sanction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area, barricaded off
- This isn't it.
Areas undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control
- This, isn't it.
Areas that have a reputation
for violence
and crime
- This isn't it.
Areas inhabited by a parallel society
- This? Isn't it.
A no-go area, where authorities have lost control
- This isn't it.
Areas where fishing
and overfishing
- Is that the one?
You are being patently and transparently absurd.— Volunteer Marek, August 15th 2019
(Transcribed by François Robere (talk))