User talk:François Robere

Templates and spacing

Hello there! Regarding your edits on the Compiler and Runtime library articles, it's all about preventing issues later down the road no matter how much better things look at the moment with additional formatting – and I agree that additional vertical spacing is required there. For example, recent typography refresh changed a lot, and any non-standard explicit formatting is simply a call for troubles. Thus, you should see how to modify the troublesome templates, so additional vertical spacing becomes introduced that way. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dsimic,

I agree that it's not an ideal solution, and in general ad-hoc solutions are to be avoided when possible. Unfortunately there's hardly a better solution at the moment as long as the layout engine behaves as it does (the templates themselves being perfectly fine). That being said, subsequent to your message I consulted the help desk and added a whitespace character as an outer title to the template; this will effectively "push" the template down by one line in every article where it appears - layout-wise it's not ideal, but it does provide centralized control. Your opinion? François Robere (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this! Using   is a much better (and centralized) solution, though it might be worth it to try passing 0.5em instead as the value for top margin through the {{Sidebar}}'s |style= parameter? Seems like that way sidebars should align perfectly with the lead section both when there is a hatnote and when there it isn't (tried it out in Firebug, and it worked as expected). Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried playing around with that, and I think it is better than the   option, but eventually you get the worse of all worlds: Where there's a header template the margin should be ~0.85, and where there isn't it should be ~0.25, and 0.5 (which, admittedly, is a reasonable average) just doesn't hit either. That being said, until this is solved in the parser level I see no better solution other than doing it manually in each article (which, while problematic from a technical perspective, produced the best overall results), given that they are all monitored over the long term. For the time being we can leave it as is (give or take an additional 0.05em of padding) until a better solution comes along. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know almost too well what it's like when you start playing with aligning elements through CSS. :) Almost always things don't work as expected, at least not in one of the major browsers. Have you tried it in IE, GC and FF? That's where real troubles are usually hiding. :) Having all that in mind, I'd say that leaving it with style = margin-top: 0.5em, at least for now, is a reasonable compromise. Of course, we can always come back to it if (or when) a better solution becomes available. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2015

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Law of attraction (New Thought), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you're marking all of your edits as minor. :/ — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey there,

Thanks. I don't mark all of my edits as "minor", just those that are - mainly small layout and code changes, but also some rephrasing. Marking this latter edit included mainly moving and removing of redundant refs, along with some cleanup of unsourced material - not something that affects the article's essence. Put differently - that article is so badly-written, that the only edits it could undergo that I'll consider "major" would be a significant copyedit or a substantial substantive addition; everything else is just "making it a little better", so I do not consider it major in any way.

Most of my edits are off-the-cuff as I'm reading articles that interest me. I do not count the bytes of an edit, but rather the time and energy it took, and the contribution it has to the substance and style of an article. Just as an example - adding a template to a page can add a couple of hundred bytes, but it'll still be a minor edit. The same can be the case with rephrasing a paragraph without actually removing any material. That being said, I may have over-used the "minor edit" tag on some occasions (if for no other reason then to mark the difference between some of my small corrections and additions and the more substantive work of some of the other editors on those articles), and I'll take your note into consideration. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Your recent editing history at Astrology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong The last revert was not part of an "edit war", as the editor in question previously refused to discuss the changes and proceeded to revert on his own accord. If anything, that editor should be warned that "I don't like it" is not reason enough to revert another's contributions. Other than that - thanks for your involvement. François Robere (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Thethree-revert rule You have already reverted three times. Theroadislong (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As have several other editors, as you may see. If you will oblige and provide the necessary warnings etc. reminding of proper conduct on talk pages. My thanks. François Robere (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Bad Biology

Please stop your disruptive removal of the {{more plot}} template at Bad Biology. WP:FILMPLOT says that film plots should be between 400 and 700 words, and we need a complete description of the plot for this film. If you want to discuss it, take it to the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, the film has no plot. That's the point. I'm almost through the film, and it's basically it - lots of sex, lots of dead bodies and discarded mutated babies, and one permanently-orgasming prostitute. It's not exactly Shakespeare, nor is it a soap opera with five twists per scene. You simply cannot elaborate more than that without actually disclosing the end (which would require about two more sentences, because that's that. That's the film. What else do you want there? A count of mutated babies? That would obviously contradict WP:FILMPLOT, which states that "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail". François Robere (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The film has a perfectly legitimate plot. You are welcome to your opinion, and you can express it on a blog or at the IMDb, but Wikipedia is not the place. I will get around to writing a full plot for the film eventually, but, until then, the template should stay, so that other people can find it at Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention. There are people, such as myself, who use this category to find articles that need work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate I agree, and retract my previous objection. Please do fix the article! We're 295 words short for it to be a legitimate account of the film's events, properly representing the dramatic intricacies of multi-clitoral cunnilingus and proper binding techniques for 2' long sentient genitalia. The article would certainly not be complete lest we describe Batz's insecurities and animal growth hormone overdose. Please, take the time and fix it! François Robere (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Razdan - Geneology

Dear Sir,

after a careful study and being a Razdan, I discovered that Razdan originated from the Zoroastrian priest responsible for teaching the Zen Avesta (The holy text of the Zoroastrians). Razdan means "To know the secret or sacred words". Razdan's are Kashmiri and migrated from Persia, modern day Iran. The first iteration of Razdan comes from the god of the Zoroastrians Ahura Mazda which translated means Ahura - loving or light and Mazda - word. The priest responsible for teaching the Zen Avesta were refered to as the fharazdah. Later as the priest and religion migrated east and settled in Armenia, they grew Zoroastrianism and gained wealth and land. The Hrazdan river in Armenia, was given the name from the priest as the locals could not pronounce fharazda and instead pronounced only the "hah", this area was the second major known anthropological resting place for modern day Razdan's. Eventually as the priest migrated through the Indu Kush and established themselves in Kashmir they brought with them wealth, horses (aryans), and knowledge of ancient teachings of Indra (a zoroastrian god, not hindu) and fire ceremonies and were given the designation of Kashmiri Pandits or Priest of Kashmir. Because in India priest were brahman caste, these Kashmiri Pandits were also designated as brahmans. This history predates the census report of 1800s and dates back to the time of Zoroaster himself. Please correct the article. Razdan's are not Indian, and more correctly we are migrants of Persia and the geneological names and lineage clearly show that. I've seen multiple other places incorrectly refer to the census report and refer to Rajanak. Razdan still today means "to know the secret or sacred words".

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Rahul K. Razdan

Rkrazdan All that being said, I only added a space in that article... Whatever your case may be, you have to have it backed by reliable sources; your own research is not enough. Once you have those, feel free to edit that article. François Robere (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Mulliner

Almost two months back you put a tag on this disambig page (Uncertain dates) and created a lot of red links. Please would you tell me what caused you to do this. I think there may be a misunderstanding. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. First, look at the previous revision (diff). You can see I made a whole bunch of little changes, mainly formatting and linking, but haven't changed the content itself. Why link? Because it makes sense that every notable subject mentioned in the article will have an article of its own, and a link, even if none exists at the moment; in this case it's to the five companies mentioned in the first section (just five distinct links, which are repeated in the second section). Why tag? Because there are a lot of question marks Re: dates the different companies and people operated. In short, the article requires some attention from someone who knows the Mulliner family history and can clarify who operated where and when, and hopefully elaborate on the most important of these in their own articles. François Robere (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, red links are frowned upon. An excuse is that the editor that made them red is writing an article to which it will be linked. Are you planning to do this? Now about dates. I am something of an expert on Mulliner family history as an experienced researcher into these things. If it were feasible for a non-family member to find those dates I'd have found them. So I don't think your edits were the least bit helpful. I've removed the tag, your red links are for you to deal with. Otherwise your "whole bunch of little changes" are to my mind unwarranted but not significant. Eddaido (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Do as you please. Regarding dates: As we're dealing with registered companies, I would expect some information would be available at either a local or national archive (indeed, The National Archives have several records of companies by the name of Mulliner that existed in the relevant time period). The current state of affairs, coupled with the lack of sourcing for the "certain" dates (sourcing which should appear in the subject articles themselves, which do not yet exist), and the general lack of notability of the subject (ie. low availability of sources) justify an "expert needed" tag. As for style: A troublesome article is only half as bad when it's well-formatted. François Robere (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, give your hopelessly naive "suggestions" a try for yourself and its not an article. Good luck. Eddaido (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you encumbered someone else with your conceited and disrespectful tone. It is most unwelcome in this company. François Robere (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Using IMDB scores

Hi. Please see this discussion and this part of the film MOS. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, You completely misunderstand the nature of this reference. The issue isn't the IMDB score, but the politicization of it. IMDB isn't the source for this claim, but Wired. IMDB is merely the source of the current rating, following the process described by Wired. François Robere (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is the topic to reply to. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Diplostomum pseudospathaceum) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, François Robere!

Wikipedia editor Bfpage just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

fasinating!

To reply, leave a comment on Bfpage's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  00:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please revert

People editing in the I/P area are limited to 1 revert per 24 hours. At 2000 Ramallah lynching, you broke this iron rule, which is covered by sanctions:

• Ist revert 13:50, 3 August 2017‎
• 2nd revert 10:09, 4 August 2017‎

You have only one option which is to restore the text as I edited it. Secondly, I added an important note from a new source, and you cancelled out the key details, and the RS source.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah... not really. Only one of those is a revert. Regardless, try to avoid lawfare; if you want to argue on the merits or demerits of an edit, however, you're welcome to do so.François Robere (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani is correct here. Please read the latest here, especially the underlined part, Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours.

You were reverted, then reinserted the same material, within a 24 hour period. That is not allowed under the latest ARBPIA rules. Please self revert, or you will probably be reported, Huldra (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually his proposition was different than yours, but that's beside the point. You changed the rules only recently to protect against something completely different than the case in point (that is - ideological, rather than editorial disagreements); my edit was both warranted and accurate, and was reversed without cause; and now you're enforcing a new rule (of which I don't recall being notified prior to today), on a case for which it was not intended, in order to suppress a proper edit in favor of one with multiple factual, stylistic and semantic errors. No, of course I will not revert to that. If you're to engage the bureaucracy to shut yet another helpful edit/or for no other reason but the bureaucracy itself, you'd have achieved nothing but to reinforce our confidence in Parkinson's law. François Robere (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What first caught my eye was the faulty grammar. You let this stand:

The 2000 Ramallah lynching was a violent incident that took place on October 12, 2000 at the el-Bireh police station, where a Palestinian mob killed and mutilated the bodies of two Israel Defense Forces reservists, Vadim Norzhich (Nurzhitz) and Yosef "Yossi" Avrahami who were taken into custody by Palestinian Authority policemen after entering Ramallah.

were taken must be written had been taken being subordinate to the simple tense of 'killed' and 'mutilated', giving the temporal order 'after being taken into custody' they were killed. This is elementary, and as it stood it was an eyesore.

The Palestinian mob of some thousand or so neither 'killed or mutilated': they did something just as bad, they cheered when shown the bloodied hands of one of those who committed that heinous act. I don't think I altered this, but it should not stand thus.

'Accidentally' is in quite a few sources. But it is not appropriate to a lead, and requires attribution, We only know that this was the official IDF version. It may well be true. But like much else, one can't assume anything in reportage here.etc.

I won't discuss this further, since the point is my change was logical, whatever its merits, and you shouldn't be engaged in wholesale cancelling without examining the merits of the changes you are blanket-reverting. So, revert. And discuss this on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

1. The grammar is just fine. The different verbs pertain to different subjects, both active and passive, and are inflected appropriately: "The cat was taken to the clinic, where the vet treated it." Also see this.
2. "Mob" is an uncountable noun. By your logic one should say "some of the rice grains were tasty, but the rest were stale" when talking about a rice bowl. Anyway, I didn't modify that part - you did - so it's irrelevant.
3. If "accidentally "is in quite a few sources" and you've no sources otherwise, then it's good enough for the lead (and that's disregarding the common sense). Also, not everything in a lead needs attribution in the lead.
4. Your change was exactly that: wholesale cancelling, and that's exactly the problem: You undid my revision, which included multiple unrelated changes, then added some material of your own; and now you're arguing about the whole package rather than explaining why you undid my original edit. François Robere (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You're edit warring, and will be reported if you persist, since you refused to undo your IR violation. Finis. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't "edit warring", this is "discussion". Are you familiar with the term? François Robere (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't discuss with people who don't follow the primary rule.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm"? François Robere (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

1RR

In conjunction with the notice just above, you should read this. In ARBPIA related topics (basically anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed) editors are restricted to one revert per 24 hour period (not 3 like everywhere else). People get blocked for this regularly, even on a first offence with no warning. A little over 24 hours also usually counts as a violation. You should keep this in mind when editing in this topic area. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. I don't edit much anymore so might miss your replies here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice. François Robere (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Messing up other people's citations

Actually, I took the trouble to make your citations readable. 09.08.2012 can be the 9 August, 2012, or the 8 of September 2012, depending on what convention dmy, or month day year. See Date format by country. I've had this problem with different newspapers, and that is why I changed it. Secondly, it is normal to provide a title of the piece, which your edit didn't. You are entitled to do that, but can hardly object to an attempt to clarify for readers what the topic of the article is. One doesn't have copyright on one's work in Wikipedia. Even editors one might take a dislike to can make useful corrections. We got off on the wrong foot? That's history, forget about it.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You've edited three citations, and each ended up having a different format. Don't mess up my citations. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Please reread what I said. No one has 'citations'. They can be modified, as, properly, NMMGG just did to mine, with good reason. The citations aren't 'yours', they are in the public domain. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

Nishidani neglected to inform you that he mentioned you in this complaint at the administrators noticeboard. Up to you if to respond or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. François Robere (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don't shout.

It's rude. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think you care for kindness given how you responded to patience on that talk page. François Robere (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed

I've closed your case but have attempted reopening the original complaint you made at ANI as it is clear you wish to discuss the conduct displayed by the user in question. If that fails for some reason, please let me know. Nihlus 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. François Robere (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me perfectly clear

I am not your "old chap" and I am not your "darling" or "dear". You are unwelcome on my talkpage. Please contribute to the discussion The appropriate talkpage. It's on my watchlist, so I'll notice. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I love your sense of humour and appreciate how very patient you must be to do this all day (Thedecentone at User talk:Kleuske)

Notify Thedecentone that he was wrong at once! François Robere (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Environmental Racism Discussion

What do you want? You pinged me and two other editors, but you didn't make a coherent request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've made two very coherent requests at ANI, was directed to DRN, then directed back, then both issues were closed (one of them by you) and now one of the admins (GB fan) is asking me on the talk page what's the problem. And I'm just the one who gave WP:3O! The original author decided to quit (and I don't mean the article, I mean Wikipedia). So here's the problem: Apparently no one cares enough to actually get involved in anything unless I cite one of Wikipedia's 300 or so policies and guidelines, or an edit war breaks out, or the editor I complained about chases a bunch of other editors out like he already did. No, it's impossible to ask admins to help before an edit war erupts, or without sanctioning a rogue editor, or in favor of old-school civil discussion. No, we have to be shitty. I'll know next time to ask for sanctions.

User:François Robere - No, you didn't make one or two coherent requests at ANI. You had a complaint, but it wasn't clear what you were complaining about, although some of us tried to ask and to figure out. In looking at it in depth, apparently you were trying to ask to have Kleuske's edits rolled back pending discussion. You didn't make that request plainly or simply, and that isn't the way we resolve a content dispute anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Are we a bloody bureaucracy or a cooperative enterprise? Just so I know. Because as it stands, if you're okay with an editor going "put up or shut up" after erasing 20% of an article against the wishes of two other editors, then Wiki has a serious problem. François Robere (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

My Assessment

Here is what I see. The basic issue is indeed a content dispute. User:Kleuske has made substantial revisions to the article, removing a considerable amount. You initially posted a complaint at WP:ANI against Kleuske, but you didn't state that Kleuske had done anything that would warrant sanctions. You said that you wanted "the admins" to do something about a user, but you didn't make a case as to what if anything the user had done wrong. You did state that you wanted the "stable" version of the article restored so that it could be discussed, but you didn't give a reason why Kleuske's edits should be rolled back other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You haven't made a well-reasoned content argument, other than that you disagree with her edits, and you haven't made any conduct argument. Please do not open a new conduct thread unless you can describe a conduct issue. If you want to discuss content, because you disagree with Kleuske's edits, you still can do that, as long as you focus on content. Now - What do you want? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to be more precise: I initiated nothing. Sturgeontransformer, who had reservations from Kleuske's conduct, asked for WP:3O, which I provided. Sturgeontransformer seemed content and gave a lengthy reply; Kleuske mostly ignored it (and Sturgeontransformer's comments) and continued to make changed.

As I said, I think I was pretty clear that this is a conduct issue, but if framing it as a content issue makes anyone happier, be my guest. I also explained on multiple occasion (this being the first) how discussing an article post-change is much more difficult than pre-change, which is one reason guidelines instruct people to seek consensus before making a change.

In essence, as I said earlier, it's a matter of one editor making sweeping changes contrary to the opinions of two other editors, and ignoring any suggestion to stop and discuss, using inflammatory language throughout. Not difficult. What I want is what I wanted from the beginning: to restore the original version prior to his changes (with minimal style or grammar corrections), then discuss his reservations regarding that version. Isn't that what we usually do? Discuss disputable changes before making them? Also, if someone could kindly ask Kleuske to be less acerbic and more attentive (as he seems to ignore some of the other editors' comments) it would make the discussion that much more productive. François Robere (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice that FR is referring to Kleuske in the masculine, as he says he has not done. There is no requirement to use the correct gender of an editor whose gender is disclosed, but accuracy is a duty and not a virtue, and there is a requirement not to claim accuracy when one has not practiced it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm keeping a running list of the number of times I used "they" vs. "he". At the moment you're losing 1:12.5. Please, tell me more! François Robere (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI closure

I am not going to block you, because I think we have not arrived at that point. I am, however, going to caution you to be more attentive to the comments of those who disagree with your edits and proposed edits, and to make more use of Wikipedia's processes for achieving broader consensus, such as WP:3O, WP:RFM and WP:RFC. If you are confident you are right, then an RFC with a neutrally-stated premise, will give you the support you need. Please also be less aggressive in your comments to others. If you continue to be belligerent and personalise disputes, you will most likely be blocked or banned. Please consider this both warning and counsel. I have no dog in this fight, but if you have people like Robert McClenon criticising you, then you are definitely doing something wrong. Numerous venues exist for discussing edits and sources in a calm and collaborative way, please use them. Guy (Help!) 01:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: Oh, gosh. The whole thing wasn't about any of my edits or even proposed edits—I haven't even edited that article at that point—and my comments were perfectly reasonable up until the admins decided to redirect my complaint twice and argue about "how it was framed" rather than "what it was about". Just for the record (again), here's the discussion before I went to ANI; here's the ANI request; here's the DNR some admin opened, and another closed before then the ANI again.

As for Robert McClenon: Argue what you may, he was completely inattentive from the start. Here's my first reply to him; despite this detailed reply, he continued to argue the conflict was about "content" for the rest of the discussion, without ever explaining why. Here's my second interaction with him; the other editor had just said something nasty, again, and I pinged Robert and some of the other involved to see exactly what I had to deal with with the other editor (you can see both of the messages in that page); his reply? An impatient "Why are you calling me? ... What do you want?". Well, what I wanted was very simple: First, a civil discussion. Second, that they ask the other editor to control their temper; but not a single admin or moderator—indeed not even the one you're praising—could let slip the phrase "let's have a civil discussion." Not one. Not one of the adults in the room thought that phrases like "put up or shut up" (on of the other editor's "gems") had no place on Wikipedia. Not one. Instead they wrestled with how the issue was framed.

So with all due respect, I could not care less what that particular editor's opinion is; he's shown he doesn't care about mine.

And one last thing: I've done more than 3500 edits on Wikipedia (over 4000, accounting for unregistered edits), including on contentious and frequently vandalized articles on science, religion and politics. I've never been blocked, never been banned, and the vast majority of my edits have been accepted even when encountered with fierce resistance. I know how Wikipedia works and I don't need to be lectured. Something else I know: The way Wikipedia is conducted is driving away, and has driven away, scores of editors - intelligent, knowledgeable, collegial editors, who've been driven away the moment they saw their first wall of [[WP:]]s. I personally heard the lines "I tried editing there once" and "I used to edit there, but..." on more than one occasion, from people whose professional and academic proficiencies are indisputable. I'm not bothered by Robert McClenon, and at this point I'm not sure I would care even if did sanction me; but Wikipedia has a problem - a serious problem - and that problem manifested throughout this whole thing; you won't hear it from people like McClenon, content as they are in the forest of policies, guidelines and other cultural artifacts that Wikipedians begat for themselves, but you will hear it from everyone else; and when everyone else are criticizing you, then you're definitely doing something wrong. François Robere (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, you could use our processes and dial back the rhetoric, and avoid a repetition that will likely end in a ban. Guy (Help!) 02:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

<blushing> You had me at "process". Are there also forms to sign? <3

See, thing is that's exactly what I tried to do, and it was a miserable failure. I sure won't try that again. François Robere (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not so hard. Ask, listen, clarify, move on. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, François. I'm the second most frequent contributor at Third Opinion, the second most frequent contributor (and one of the founders) at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and a member (and current chairperson) of the Mediation Committee. I don't say any of that to brag or to claim any authority (and, indeed, I'm writing here only in my own capacity, not as a representative of any of those venues), but only to illustrate that at least know a little bit about what I'm about to say about content dispute resolution. I've been watching your work and I want to thank you for your efforts. We always need more volunteers to help with content dispute resolution here and I admire your good will and enthusiasm. I'm also pleased to see that you've focused on Third Opinion. That's the best place for newcomers to dispute resolution to get their feet on the ground (and the place where they can do the least harm if they're not quite on target, since what we offer there are non-binding opinions which do not even "count" towards consensus). I'd like to address a couple of things with you, however, which are making your work less effective than it might be:

• From your comments above in this thread, and some things that I've seen you do and say elsewhere, you're struggling with the proper use of Wikipedia policies and procedures and, indeed, seem to be of the opinion that those policies and procedures are a bad thing. There's two different things in that sentence (a) first, you, yourself, seem to be struggling with simply how to do things here, partly in DR, and partly in the procedural side of the encyclopedia as a whole and (b) second, you don't like the bureaucratic way things work here. I'm hoping that the second is nothing more than a "sour grapes" reaction to the first. Why? Because I think that you have the makings of a good DR'ist, but that will never happen if you truly oppose the system as a whole. If you want to change that system, fine, that's what wiki is all about. Pick some policies or procedures and go to their talk pages and advocate for their repeal or reform. But folks who are seeking DR want results that will "stick", and solutions to their problems which don't conform to existing policies and procedures are likely to be rejected by the disputants if they know anything about how things work here and, if they don't, are only likely to last until someone who does know comes along. The best solutions to disputes are those which help the parties come to consensus in a manner which fully comports with policy. One corollary of that is that to be an effective DR'ist, you need to have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of, at least, basic policy and a willingness to investigate and learn areas that you don't know if you're going to accept cases involving them.
• That brings us to the "procedures" part. At the very least, you need to fully read and comply with the instructions on the DR pages that you're working under. Filing something at DRN and then having to be reminded that you need to notify the other parties when it plainly states that at the top of the page is simply embarrassing. Similar, but more problematic, is your willingness to file and/or take on disputes which are about conduct matters when the instructions at 3O and DRN plainly state that they don't handle conduct matters. Similarly, your ongoing references to "admins" when you're at a venue which isn't part of administrators' duties betrays a lack of knowledge about what admins can and cannot do. None of the content DR processes — 3O, DRN, MEDCOM, or RFC — require administrator participation or, indeed, ordinarily involve administrator participation.
• Finally, just a word to the wise about giving Third Opinions. What I'm about to say is not a 3O requirement and not everyone does it this way, but let me suggest that 3O is best used to give an opinion (after seeking clarification if needed) and then walking away from the dispute. 3O can be used to, but really isn't intended to, provide a venue or source for mediation. It's for seeking an opinion. (One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'.") Mediation on article or user talk pages is fraught with problems, the first and most important being that it's very easy for a disputant to conclude that you're taking sides and are partisan. Once that happens, you're just another party to the dispute. All the authority we have to offer to dispute resolution is our our neutrality and once you become perceived as a partisan that goes away. The second problem is that the policy I referred you to (in the footnote, below) about handling conduct problems doesn't give us any special rights when the dispute is at an article or user talk page, which makes conduct issues very hard to deal with. For that reason, giving an opinion and riding off into the sunset (with a hardy "Hi-Yo Silver" if you like), is the most effective thing to do. See my personal standards as a 3O Wikipedian for more detail on my feelings about how best to do 3O.

Let me end where I began, with commending you for your enthusiasm and effort, and encouraging you to continue with DR with a few tweaks to your efforts. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and comments, TransporterMan - the last of which I found particularly true - and my apologies for replying just now. You're generally right in your observations, but you're missing on one crucial assertion: My disagreement isn't with the policies themselves, but with how they're applied; and more generally with what Wikipedia grew to become from what, perhaps, it was meant to be.

Wikipedia is not just an information source or an organization, but a miniature society, with its own rules, conventions, literature, and the anecdotal makings of a mythology (eg. your quote above). The writing guidelines themselves are not a problem - they parallel accepted academic norms, and constitute a style guide the likes of which are common in other institutes. The conduct guidelines aren't necessarily a problem either - any organization must have a code of conduct and methods for resolving disputes. The problem is elsewhere: for whatever reasons, humans tend to take any decent corpus of laws and thicken it with a shrubbery of regulations, losing sight of the trunks along the way; and this is even more pronounced in regulated online communities like StackOverflow and Wikipedia, perhaps because they do not require their "magistrates" to have any formal legal training. This is further exacerbated by the fact most users do not have any training in discussion or debate - itself a proficiency requiring practice - and so many users naturally veer away from the substance of an argument (or "clash" in formal debating terms) into the more familiar territory of policy, strictly applied. And so regulations come to dominate the discussion, rather than the fundamentals - the Five Pillars and the statement of principles. The result is, indeed, that instead of Wikipedia being an open and inviting environment for anyone with the writing skills and subject knowledge (and a modicum of social competence), it presents a learning curve largely unrelated to its core goals.

Bear in mind, most of the above has been documented and researched, and the slow decline in the number of active Wikipedians has not gone unnoticed by Wikimedia. I've dwelt on it again after my most recent experiences here, and come to believe that much of it can be countered without touching policy substance. I'll elaborate in due time, perhaps even ask for you advice.

Thanks again for your comments and attention. François Robere (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Thank you

I appreciate your input on the editing issues described on the talk page of the Vagina article. I am only coming to your talk page because I didn't want this note to get lost in all the goings-on. I have to agree that things got rather complex and you seemed to sift through it all pretty skillfully. Thank you. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

3rd opinion

Thanks for your thoughts here, but as I noted there, you do not appear to be familiar with WP:MEDRS and other guidelines and norms for editing about health, and as far as I can see you have not dealt much with alt med and pseudoscience, which are topics that have discretionary sanctions on them. While I appreciate your effort to help, offering opinions that are not based in an understanding of the policies and guidelines is not ultimately helpful. Please reconsider offering third opinions on those matters until you understand that underlying policies and guidelines better. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Did you see in your extensive search anything to suggest I am not a medical doctor? Or a nuclear physicist? Or perhaps a sociologist frequently occupied with fringe phenomena? I doubt you have. As far as you know, I might have written WP:MEDRS myself at some point. But even if I haven't - the fallacy of addressing one's characteristics rather than one's argument does nothing to advance the discussion. François Robere (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I am speaking of what you do here in Wikipedia and your awareness of policies and guidelines based on what you do here. What you do in the real world has nothing to do with understanding Wikipedia, and the fact that you said anything about what you do in the real world as though it is relevant, shows that you do not know what you are doing in Wikipedia enough to be offering advice to other people. Please do reconsider participating at third opinions until you understand Wikipedia better.Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: So you reckon WP:MEDRS has nothing to do with the practice of eg. medicine? François Robere (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Not a thing. It has to do with the kinds of sources that are OK to use in Wikipedia for health content. You don't have to be a doctor to understand it and many doctors don't understand it - it is in fact counter-intuitive for doctors and scientists who write regularly in the biomedical literature. Again you are showing that you do not understand Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Fun fact: WP:MEDRS quotes no less than 31 sources mostly from medical literature as justification. François Robere (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding misgendering with Template:they

Hi, François,

At this discussion, regarding proper pronoun usage you said, "I try to use 'they' to avoid gender-related mistakes..." but there's a better way: intead of "they", use "{{they}}":

• Flyer22 Reborn is "they / them / their / theirs".
• Doc James is "he / him / his / his."
• François Robere is "they / them / their / theirs".

If you wish to change your pronouns, you can do so by going to your Preferences. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks! François Robere (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Let’s rest a little Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II

François, thanks for working with me on the article, let’s pause the editing of this article for some period of time because it has been reverted too many times already. This may be viewed by some as a Edit War. Cheers GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm now mainly adding or rephrasing stuff. Do avoid undoing if you remove good stuff along with wording you disagree with. François Robere (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

ok, so I’ll not touch it then for some time to leave you some unstressful time to work on it, but try to work at different areas avoiding disputed entries. P.S. François, please be conscious of the fact that it appears that you have a strong opinion on the subject that others may not agree with. I might be guilty of the corresponding as well. Let's try to be as unbiased as possible. Rethink everything twice before making changes to see if it might appear to be a POV pushing. Cheers man. GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi François, you entered: ”The question of Polish complicity in the Holocaust has proved controversial in Poland itself” backed by citing 2 media articles. One from the American LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/13/local/me-9923

and one from the Israeli Ynet news:

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4745850,00.html

How do these 2 foreign media publicists prove Polish "complicity" in the Holocaust being controversial in Poland itself? There is not a word about it and I have read the entire articles.

On top of that, you linked the expression “controversial” to "Polish death camp" controversy article. This doesn’t make any sense.

You see what I mean? I read the Polish press and I can tell you that the issue of Polish complicity in the Holocaust is not controversial in Poland at all. If you really think that the matter is controversial in Poland itself then you need to back it up by the sources that prove it to be true; such as a range of article in the Polish press or few books about it etc. I hope you understand where I'm I coming from. I will move this conversation to the associated talk page and will think how to reword this line, but you can help me with that if you want. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Both sources are WP:RELIABLE, and both clearly support the statement. I'm not going to do literary analysis on that. I'm unclear on why you place such an emphasis on the nationalities of sources, both in the article and on talk pages.

I read the Polish press and I can tell you that the issue of Polish complicity in the Holocaust is not controversial in Poland at all Indeed, it is just widely denied, at least from what I'm seeing time and time again. Would you prefer we go to my original phrasing? François Robere (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts

Hi Francois, in response to your recent message to me on the other page, I’ll utter my thoughts here instead. You mentioned an antiSemitism in Poland. It's true, Poland had a very large chunk of antisemitic element among its populace always. It is somehow typical because that was where the most Jews lived for a 1000 years, you don’t have antisemites in Greenland, don't you, LOL? The conflicts between Jews and Poles were mostly based on the faith disputes and economic issues. Some Poles, for example, being Catholics unfairly blamed Jews for the death of Christs. Some Jews, on the other hand, favored other Jews in business and discriminated Polish traders. The list of this minor conflicts between the Jews and Poles is very long but in general Jews in Poles lived in Poland together in relative peace and harmony for centuries. This all changed on the outbreak of the war. Jews lost all rights because of the Nazi orders and that is when some of the antisemitic elements within the Polish society blossomed. Jewish life was worthless, criminal element further demoralized by the reality of the war took advantage of the situation and committed many crimes against the Jews, rapes and murders. But you need to understand that these people didn't represent Polish society as a whole. Majority of the Poles were rather sympathetic to the Jewish situation, and many actively helped despite the fact that any help was punished by death (imagine that!) Now think how painful it must be to those righteous Poles and their offsprings when they hear that “the Polish Nation is complicit in the Holocaust" this is unfair. Guilty is the criminal element of the society, not the Nation. The reason I’m writing all this to you is to strive some kind of understanding and sensitivity of how the Poles feel about all of this. PS I’m old Francois, some Jewish blood here also:) you can say that I’m telling you all this from my life experience GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You're exhibiting exactly the sort of denial you denies exist. It starts with a false equivalence: "Jews and Poles always had small conflicts" - conflicts like the Khmelnytsky pogroms, where 100,000 Jews were murdered? Or any of the smaller pogroms, where "only" dozens of people were murdered? But the Jews... the Jews preferred to buy in their own shops! Disgusting! Are you serious?

The Jews were always a persecuted minority, you can't equate between whatever they got and whatever they supposedly "dished". You can't call persecution conflict. This is the beginning of denial, and it goes on to suggesting the tiny minority of Jews who survived the Holocaust were responsible for Communism (Józef Glemp, 2001); are planning world domination (Antoni Macierewicz, 2015); bear responsibility to the Holocaust because they were "passive" (Andrzej Zybertowicz , 2018); and many more such comments government officials and media.[1][2][3] Poland is still full of it[4][5], and rather than face it today, you're busy denying the past. A "criminal element demoralized by the reality of the war"... are you kidding me? They were not "criminal elements", they were neighbours, friends, strangers at the marketplace. I've heard dozens of survivors' testimonies (if not more), and one of the common threads running most of them is betrayal by fellow Poles. Ronen Bergman's story? I've heard dozens just like it. People being ratted out to the Nazis by strangers. People coming back after the war and finding their homes ransacked and all possessions looted by neighbours. It's not "criminal elements", it's literally every single story.

Jews, as you know, did not simply disappear, and their possessions did not magically vanish, and it wasn't all the German Nazis' doing. People knew what's going on and took advantage of it. "Now think how painful it msut be to those righteous Poles and their offspring" - yes, of course... consider the Poles emotions. Poles are the victims here... we must protect the Poles... Well, what about Jews and their offspring? When will anyone take responsibility for that? [6][7][8]

François Robere (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You mean this Ukrainian Hetmnan’s Bohdan Khmelnytsky pogrom? I sadly see François that you have a very strong opinion on the issue and you knowledge is based only on one sided references. Very troubling. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean Khmelnytsky of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland.

One sidedness? I doubt you read even a single one of those sources. I doubt you ever asked yourself what your own numbers mean: if Poland was home to 6,700 Righteous Among the Nations (whose feelings worry you so, as if people of such character get offended so easily) - a mere 0.02% of Poles - what does it say about the other 99.98%? And those 0.02% who saved their fellow Poles under threat of death - who were they threatened by, exactly? Surely if everyone were so sympathetic to the Jewish plight, and only a few Poles - a handful, really, only the "criminal elements of society" - posed them a threat, surely they had nothing to fear, right? Who would give them away? After all, the other 99.98% of Poles were so sympathetic. François Robere (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Francois, we are speaking about the same man, the hero of Ukraine, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, he led the 1648 Khmelnytsky Uprising against the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. His rebellion among many other things resulted in the massacres of the Polish Jews. Up to 100.000 were killed by his Ukrainian rebels called Cossacks. Jews sided with the Polish King (do you dare to ask yourself why?). You see, that's what I'm talking about when I said that you have a very strong opinion based on one-sided views and even stereotypes. But let me be clear, I’m not criticising you for that Francois, actually, I do understand you. PS I'm busy right, just wanted to drop this line here before I head out. I'll address the rest later. PS Francois, may I ask you if you are an Israeli? Just out of the curiosity, you don’t have to answer if you don't want to. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I know who he was, I know he was born in the far reaches of the Polish commonwealth, I know he was educated in Poland and spoke Polish fluently, and after being captured while fighting on behalf of the commonwealth was bailed by Polish nobility or office holders. Like it or not, he was as much part of the Polish commonwealth as anyone else.

I also know that your recurring attempts to classify both perpetrators and sources based on their nationality, is nothing but an attempt to sidestep well-known truths, hanging to whatever you can find (eg. some of your sources that are either unknown or unqualified to make the argument). You say I'm "one-sided", well - I asked you what your numbers mean when you look at them from a different angle... Have you? François Robere (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

See Francois! Exactly what I was talking about! After I proved to you that in fact, you did’t know much about the Khmelnytsky, you only heard something Khmelnytsky-pogroms-Poland, you immediately started to spin everything. Because your strong opinion takes over you conscious. Khmelnytsky wasn’t Polish Francois, his Cossacks were not Polish either. He was not a subject of the Polish Crown when he committed atrocities on Jews and Polish Catholic Clergy. His newly formed Ukrainian State was fighting Poland. Many Jews fled for the safety of the territories still controlled by the Polish Kingdom to avoid the slaughter but you unconsciously reject all of the above facts because you strong opinion prevails. You are immediately looking for any abything to make Khmelnytsky Pogrom as Polish as possible. Despite the fact that you already know now that his atrocities had NOTHING to do with Poland other than the fact he spoke Polish. This is exactly the same course of your unconscious thinking when it comes to the Holocaut. You twist everything because your strong opinion takes over. Very troubling but I still have a great degree of sympathy to you Francois and I’m pretty sure I do understand you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course he wasn't! They never are, are they? You keep denying any Polish involvement in any historical massacre, whether from the 17th century or WWII. You deny antisemitism, collaboration and persecution, usually by calling "No true Scotsman": "it's not true Poles, it's an 'antisemitic element of the populace'"; "it's not true Poles, it's a 'criminal element demoralized by the war'"; "it's not true Poles, it's rebel Cossacks". It's never "true Poles", isn't it? "True" Poles are "brave" and "sympathetic", and all 6,700 of them saved Jews! François Robere (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

François please, I’m not denying the fact that there were Poles that committed crimes against the Jews and I never did. There were Polish nationals who committed terrible crimes on Jews, of course, and there were many people like that. I know more barns like Jedwabne were Jews were slathered with the active participation of Poles. But not all did that. Most Poles were preoccupied with their own survival. Ask yourself this question. If Poles were so eager to help the German why death penalty for helping Jews? Questions like this you should reflect on. I'll tell you the personal story later when I find some time. Good day or good night whenever you are :) speak to you later. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Good, so what's the problem? No one said everyone were involved. Stop grabbing at straws to prevent any mention of it in the article. François Robere (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, one of the sources you liked (Piotrowski) claims that the whole Polish society was involved in hunting and killing Jews. Here is my personal story I promised to tell you. During the war, my mother helped to shelter (3 weeks) a Jewish friend of her, a veterinarian. He left the Ghetto and decided to blend in on the Arian side because he had a very slight Jewish look in opinions of many. The were no Ghetto walls in the town we lived in, so it was easy to move in and out. All neighbors were told that he is a Pole, a cousin, on his way to Warsaw, but most suspected that it is not the case. One day when he took an infant (me) for a walk, he was seen by a German officer (very nice men) my mother knew. The Germans lived nearby. (Germans expelled Poles from the nicer apartments and moved them to the apartments Jews were expelled from) The German officer asked my mother when he bumped into her "who is the man that is walking the infant every day? My mother told him the same story that he is a cousin of his way to Warsaw. The German answered: “Er sieht wie ein Jude aus" - He looks like a Jew. My mother almost literally got a heart attack from panic. If the German investigated or called the Gestapo we all would be dead. Next day my mother called a friend and asked for help. She arranged a new location with a farmer in the nearby village. Her husband rode two bicycles with the doctor to the village where he was hidden until the end of the war. Doctor survived but died in 1947 from natural death. I bearly remember him. The reason I told you this story is to point out something. The Jewish doctor - 1 person receiving assistance. Helpers were, my mother, my father, cleaning help that lived with us, my mother's friend who arranged a new location, her husband, the farmer, his wife and indirectly four teenaged sons. Now look, it took 11 extremally strong people to help one person survive. But it would take only 1 bad person to denounce them. Now, none of them is recognized by the Yad Vashem, they all past away in late 60's and early 70's, not sure about the teenage sons but if they are alive they must be very old. Untold stories like mine are many. Reflect on this a little, at least try. That may at least change your perception on the view that “ a mere 0.02%" helped and the rest should be condemned. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I believe you're mixing Piotrowski with Grabowski, and I'm not sure you're reading the latter as he intended.

Second, your mother's story is heroic and commendable, but your educational mission here is quite simply misplaced. As I said, I heard dozens of survivors' stories if not more, so I obviously know saviors' stories as well. The article in question isn't about the saviors, it's about all the rest. The Polish WWII ethos is that of a "heroic society" - a brave stand against the German invader on all levels of society - a myth. A lie, if you will. The fact of the matter is that the Polish people weren't any better than any other society that had to endure Nazi rule. They suffered more than some, but were braver than few. However you turn it - double the number of Righteous, multiply it tenfold to account for the supportive environment - you're still left with a fraction of Poles. The rest? In the beginning they said "we didn't know", but we know they did. Then they said "we couldn't stop it", but the Righteous few showed that it could be done, at least in some cases. Then they said "but at least we didn't do it ourselves"... but by all accounts they did do it to thousands of people. You say ten people were needed to save just one person? The same was true for many pogroms: ten or more attackers on every victim; and more people around them who just didn't do anything. Jews were a tenth of the population, but no one cared when they were gone. And therein lies the core of the Polish lie: The Polish nation was not engaged in saving Jews; most people just didn't care enough, and a great many were happy to see the Jews disappear. That is what Grabowski meant when he said "there were no bystanders"; you either did something or you didn't; most people - the Polish nation at large - didn't; only the precious few did. It would honor your mother's memory, as well as the man she saved, to clarify how unusually brave and remarkable her actions were, rather than bind her in the same sheath with the indifferent majority. François Robere (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am interrupting. I edit a lot of Holocaust content on WP. During the past year, I have edited or read pages about Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and present day Baltic neo-Nazis. Last night I read the Wiki article about the Zaporozhian Cossack navy in the 15th to 17th century. I replied to a comment on the talk page questioning whether they ever sacked Constantinople I replied there, and on the editor's talk page . He is Adnai, the banned Russian guy who was a Wikignome on English Wikipedia. I read your entries in the discussion there. I like and agree with what you said: "A lot of prejudiced people can be quite nice in person, and would even align themselves with your cause if they only knew you. Indeed - familiarity is one of the reasons that have been frequently cited to explain the speed by which LGBTx were accepted by (Western) society vs. other minorities. The fact that a person has that infobox on their profile doesn't mean they're beyond "redemption"; in some ways it's better that they "wear their beliefs on their sleeves" than hide or mask them. . . other Wikipedians simply don't know what to look for, so they accept a range of expressions that, to a member of a minority, are crystal-clear." Next, I read your essay, about racism. I feel sad that it ignited a firestorm of protest. I know of WP:NONAZIS. I like your essay better.

The conversation you had with Bella was in 2018. These feelings people have, especially about Jews, they never seem to die out. I grieved as I read this. It is dated 2010. I grieved when I read THIS, published by Deutsche Welle! (If anyone should know better, they should!) The U.S. would never give $100 billion, HIMARS, and 155mm ammo to the 2017 Unite the Right Rally (nor would the latter want them to); yet they do give that, and more, to current fans of Babyn Yar in our proxy war. Returning to Bella's comment and the present, I recently read about the Crimean Krymchaks. This excerpt seems relevant: "Why did Poland adopt a law allowing for the criminal prosecution of anyone who suggests that some Poles helped the Nazis, but decline to pass a law on perpetuating the memory of those who saved Jews, often at the cost of their lives? Why in Lithuania is Ruta Vanagaite, the author of the book “Ours,” which addresses the extermination of the Jews by Lithuanian people, considered an enemy of the people and a traitor?”

I have been editing Wikipedia for 13 years. I've learned so much! I never felt welcome here, e.g. I only was informed that I had been assigned a Wikipedia mentor in 2011 when I was told he had died last year! I feel even less welcome now. Thank you for listening.--FeralOink (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Medri Bahri round 2

Interested in giving your third opinion a second time? The third party has organized a new soure which he believes to back up his change from 1879 and 1890 and naming Italian Eritrea as a successor state. In reality it's just a more detailled version of what we already observed: There was some armed resistance after the imprisonment of the last Bahr Negash. It even states that Ras Alula was the de facto ruler over the Eritean highlands, so it's a shot in his own foot really. If you would state the obvious we could reverse his changes without many problems. GG LeGabrie (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This heading is the funniest thing I read all day. I'll attend to it tomorrow. Thanks! François Robere (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Since it appears that both you(LeGabrie) and Francois Robere are best friends in this discussion, I am right to state that the Third Opinion is Biased. Please recuse yourself Francois Robere as you are proving to me that you are NOT a NEUTRAL Party to this discussion.Uknowofwiki (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

More at User_talk:NeilN#Unlocking_Medri_Bahri. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Would be cool if you could leave your opinion here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Medri_Bahri#Ethiopian-Bias_in_Article_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medri_Bahri#MerabMillash(MedriBahri)_1870s-1890_(More_Notables_and_Events_then_1879) LeGabrie (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Good work on CWAP

Hi Francois Sorry about not getting back to you earlier, too busy. Good work on the article C. with the Axis P. looks much better in many aspects especially that it has been abbreviated. Now, when I read it I do sense, however, an unintentional POV from your part. It all comes back to what we talked about previously, (remember?) your strong opinion. Expect an invasion of other people with Polish POV. You may contemplate working on some things a little to avoid that. For example, you stress Grabowski’s finding as an undisputable and eternal truth. However, his finding of 200.000 plus Jews killed by Poles is in fact unusual. He goes against the finding of everybody else, other than Gross but this guy has very little credibility. Secondary, you need to add that the police blue police (former polish police) had to report to duty for the Germans or face the death penalty. There I more but start with polishing that, otherwise, you will find your version changed, I’m certain of that. I don’t want that to happen because I like it, you did a good job. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Hey GizzyCatBella,

Thanks for the comment. To be frank, I'm surprised it took this long for one of the "others" to revert it.

• I tried to make the whole section as straightforward as possible. Grabowski's estimate is cited by both Connelly and Bauer (to name just a couple), and from what I can see the only reason it's unusual among the other cited estimate is because it's the only one actually trying to account for Polish violence against Polish Jews, the others taking the narrow approach of "crimes against the state" (a difference I tried to explain in the article). If you know of other studies that take the first approach but reach widely different conclusion, I'm very much interested in knowing them. Nevertheless I'll review my phrasing there and see if it implies certainty or undue weight.
• As for Gross - I don't know of any credibility issue of his, but I do know he's highly regarded enough to have caused turmoil in Poland, back in 2001, and is widely cited.
• My exact phrasing was "It was mostly composed by former policemen forced to report for duty under the threat of execution". We can reword it if you think it unclear.

Thank you very much! I really do appreciate the comment.

François Robere (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It has been relapsed already, but I really like your variant better because it is compressed and it is focusing on actual collaborators rather than non-collaborating. I’ll talk to the editor who reverted your version to reconsider his stance. But as I said Francois, there is a need for a slight alteration of your version to make it pleasing for both sides of the argument. Grabowski’s conclusion is extraordinary, it may be accurate but presently, there are very few historians that actually correspond to his stance and it's strongly rejected by the Polish historians. This needs to be emphasized otherwise we will never get a consensus. Gross is another issue, not important at the moment. Nevertheless, I’ll back you up because other than these minor issues that can be easily fixed. your version is much better than the lengthy and complex one before. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not an "either-or" situation, you know? Those stories have their place, just not in that article, and certainly not in the way that they were presented - as a sort of "cover up". Reality is complicated enough as it is, and WWII made it that much more complicated; we need to find the ways to tell all of the stories, and do it properly.

Yeah. I doubt they'll change their minds, having filed an WP:ANI against me. The moment the ANI discussion is concluded I'll get back to reviewing Grabowski, as promised.

François Robere (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommended

https://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Victims-During-English-Hebrew/dp/0896040550 This is not a bad work by Gutman and Krakowski (you know who they are right?) a landscape of conclusions from a Jewish viewpoint. You should read François one day if you haven’t already. I usually read historical work of both views and draw my own opinions. I can suggest some work of respected Polish or other scholars for comparison if you are genuinely intrigued by the topic. https://www.amazon.com/The-Holocaust-and-European-Societies-Social-Processes-and-Social-Dynamics-The-Holocaust-and-its-Contexts/dp/1137569832/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8 GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The first is on my least; I'll check the second one. François Robere (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Focus on the "Ghettos" section François Robere when you get an opportunity, it's too long-drawn and there is too much load on Jewish collaboration. That Jewish Gestapo spy pictured is actually worth noticing because he was a true SOB, same with Żagiew and Group 13 but Ghetto Police should hold less weight. Also, your version of the "Blue Police" segment is better in my judgment, try to incorporate it into the article, I'll back you up on that one. Thanks, GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I will. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Partial is not good

[9]: you should also restore the reference that backs it up. Currently this number is unsourced. I support the resotration of the sentence we had in the article, which cited several historians. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I believe I put it there in the reverted revision, but couldn't find it later for some reason. I'll add it now. François Robere (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

number of "bad" Poles

With respect that is not what you asked, you asked what she meant by Money being behind it, not what evidence she had for the bias of some sources, please drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You realize how biased her stance is, that she repeatedly makes allusions to antisemitic stereotypes without even realizing it? François Robere (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That is irrelevant (and a PA, I remind you the article is under special sanctions, and it may well get you a block). What she meant by a statement is irrelevant, asking does she have RS to back it up is not. Besides which her statement (as I said) was off topic that does not mean you can continue to discus matters that have naff all to do with the articles improvement but are just tit fort tat snipping. So asking you not to do it again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Get me a block for asking what she meant? Are you serious? You should be warning her for making that comment, not me. Have you?

Bear in mind her opinions are very much relevant insofar as they get reflected in the article (and even on the talk page) and place Wiki at legal jeopardy. François Robere (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No, for continuing to comment on the user, and for treating ma talk page like a forum. It does not matter how biased she is, what matters is what she says (not why she says it). You are not going to get a block for doing it once, you will if it becomes a pattern. I did (by the way) tell her she was getting close to sopaboxing, she had then wit to stay m=stum.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Which I never did, so I assume your comment is merely a friendly attempt to watch out for me, rather than an expression of opinion on my discussion style. François Robere (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Obstruction

We have a compromise over at Polish collaboration, and your objection to it reads more like "I do not like it" then any valid objection. As the page is under DS this might not be a good stance to take.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me Slatersteven, but you're out of line. You keep coming back to "warn" me against things, but I don't see you warning others when they far worse.

I agreed to a compromise back in March 17th, which Bella quickly rejected. You didn't warn her then, nor when she repeatedly ignored my questions or even refused to discuss them (!) (list). You didn't warn her when she repeatedly reverted my texts, even removing tags asking for clarifications, or when she made despicable edits unfounded on anything (list). You warned me of "edit warring", but said nothing of others' disruptive behaviors ([10]).

On my part, I made a proposal which is as good as they come: Concise, carefully phrased, and well sourced - complete with page numbers and even quotes for more than half of the references [11]. Bella, on her side cherry-picked sources to the extreme [12], and flooded the page with mostly irrelevant sources [13], which she clearly didn't read. She repeatedly made all sorts of accusations against me, from "POV pushing" through "cherry picking" to "personally insulting" her, but for some reason never provided proof. You said nothing on any of this, even when I pinged you.

And now you want me to compromise on a WP:FALSEBALANCE that isn't supported by any of the recent (and even not so recent) sources, and vaguely based on news clips from the 1940's and some 1980's journals that aren't even fully cited. So no. Bella hasn't fulfilled her WP:BURDEN of proof. She repeatedly provided sources that contradict her, and when I asked for clarification she desperately tried to find others that might contradict those, instead of just admitting she was wrong. I can compromise on phrasing, or on the inclusion of some minor fact or another, or on whether a borderline-relevant source is really relevant, but I won't compromise on accuracy. This "he said, she said" style of text gives undue weight to sources that are either extremely old, and surpassed by newer sources (1960's is pretty old in this domain); or to vague mentions of "something that may have been said to someone" (rather than something clear, concrete and well-documented); and furthermore, is clearly contradicted by RS that state that there were willing collaborators as eminent as the former Polish premier. We should summarise "the most reliable sources on the topic" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), not manufacture a controversy. François Robere (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

We have more modern sources for this, and it is irrelevant anyway. We now have DS inn place, that is why I warned you, you have chosen to ignore that. We are not here to report "facts" we are here to report what RS say "factually accurate or not). I found sources that back here claim, how come you have not?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I want to see the modern sources! All of the modern sources we have state the contrary, and you're welcome to check yourself.

We are not here to report "facts" we are here to report what RS say. Oh, and I haven't asked for RS maybe 20 times?

I found sources that back here claim, how come you have not? Because it's not my burden of proof. Bella made the claim, Bella needs to back it up, and you should be asking Bella why she didn't, not me. Have you? François Robere (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

OK you want more [[14]] 2011, [[15]] 1994 (or is this not modern enough?), [[16]] 2001 (not too old I hope). Note how long this took.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're complaining to me. I've been asking for Bella for sources for a month and a half now. Why are you complaining to me about asking for sources rather than to Bella for not providing them? This isn't a rhetorical question - I'd really like an explanation. Also please opine on her "cherrypicking" sources to death (as I've already shown with lengthy quotations on the talk [17]). François Robere (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Because your the one arguing that you want to see them, rather then accepting they have already been provided multiple times. Bella gave a ton of sources, and you rejected them for reasons such as ""too old" or "i cannot read them". Now I have provided you with modern sources (do you want more, I can find them?). What Bella has done is irrelevant, you are the one refusing to accept a compromise based upon multiple RS. Now do you accept that yes there are modern sources that say the Germans did attempt to create as Polish rump state?Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, Bella is not refusing to accept my text, you are. AS she has accepted it why I am going to ask her why? You have challenged what I have said (she has not) so I am telling you why I think you are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't have a right to ask? The very first source I asked her about [18] she still mis-cites (Lee didn't write this, Gross did), still miss-quotes (he makes it clear that no "puppet government" would've formed), and more importantly - still references. The fact of the matter is the more sources she finds, the more evidence we have she's wrong. How can she claim - how can you claim - that Witos "failed" the Germans attempt, when the author claims the opposite in the very same paragraph? And you say "the sources have been provided"? I'm now going through your sources and I'll tell you what I think; in the meanwhile go through that and tell me if the sources really say what she claims they say.

she has accepted it why I am going to ask her why? You didn't answer the question. I asked you why you keep bothering me, and never warn others against edit warring, "cherry picking", refusal to discuss, insulting other editors, flooding the talk page to make a point etc. etc. François Robere (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed your sources, you can see on the relevant talk page. I also added a breakdown of the problem to clarify just why none of these sources actually support Bella's (and now your) assertions. François Robere (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am warning you because you (and not her) are now the only person refusing to accept consensus on a DS enforcement talk page. I am not going to bother any more, if you end up with a block it is your own damn fault.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You realize after all your talk and "warnings" you just introduced the same change I was pushing for? [19][20] François Robere (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: As for "bothering" - it's not about not 'bothering' me, it's about spreading your "bother" more evenly across editors. If some editors get a "free pass" for bad behaviours then the process fails, and this recent discussion is an example of that: The first discussion started on March 19th (and ended with no clear conclusion 11 days later); in the month that followed Bella got a "free pass" for poor sourcing and abjectly false claims, I got a rundown of reverts and arguments, ANI was involved twice, and ~4400 viewers ([21]) read a poorly-sourced, sub-par version of the page. Why should this happen? If everyone pulled their weights in the first discussion we could've concluded the whole thing in 3-5 days. François Robere (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Cite errors

Hi FR, can I just ask you to use a more standard format for reference sources, we constantly get these 'Cite Errors' at the bottom of the article, that a reference source was citied but not referenced, I suspect it's related to formatting issue. --E-960 (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason that happens is because some sections assume a ref exists in the reflist when it's been removed. The reflist is hugely useful - prevents multiple citations of the same source in different formats - but people should comment-out sources in stead of removing them to make it easier to handle. See the ref section at Collaboration with the Axis Powers for an example [22] - there's a whole section of commented-out sources there. François Robere (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

My answer

The book about the GG is the only recent one about the GG in English I know. It's rather about the Holocaust in GG than about the GG, but still contains some informations. I have explained who were Communists in Poland and why I believe that the subject covered in the book deserves to be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xx236: You explained, but only after people asked. Why not give them enough context that they don't need to ask? Take this message for example: I know why you wrote it, but what if I didn't? What does a message titled "my answer" tell me? Nothing. I don't even know what was the question! Compare with this:

Context in TP comments

I see you left me a message on the need for context in TP comments. I think that...".

François Robere (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't label non-minor edits as "minor"

as you did here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That isn't minor? It's simple copyedit. François Robere (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of AfD debate

Hi, I am writing to inform you that an AfD debate has been initiated for the article Environmental inequality in Europe (formerly Environmental racism in Europe). Thanks, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making passive aggressive personal attacks

This is the second time in the last two days that you've made passive aggressive personal attacks (the other time is here). I guess you think that phrasing it with phony-concern with my well being is either funny or it excuses the actual nature of what you're doing. But it's not and it doesn't. So please refrain from these kind of comments in the future.

You might also want to explain why you blind-reverted an edit without bothering to read what was in it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Volunteer Marek,

Quick question: on a scale of one to ten, how would you rate any of the following in terms of civility?

• Hey, Icewhiz-Francois Robere tag team (man! look at that time between edits, you guys are so quick! You have a mental link or something?) you're losing it.
• How about you "focus" your RfC (and format it properly) so that it doesn't propose one thing, and then tries to sneak in another?
• And once again you're borderline violating BLP by trying to smear a prominent historian... Rather what you're trying to do is to remove ANY mention of prominent AK members who have been recognized by Yad Vashem
• As for your clumsy attempt at an explanation ... bunkum!... YOU. DIDN'T. READ. WHAT. YOU. WERE. REVERTING.
• Please, come up with better excuses for reverts.
• And of course many, many fallacious accusations of "POV pushing", "cherry picking", misleading editors and the like.

What do you think? A seven? An eight? François Robere (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You know what? Proceed as you think best. Really, please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Do answer. As the host on this talk page I must entertain my guests, of course, but do allow me this one pleasure. François Robere (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Cite errors

Hi FB, could you just fix the 'cite errors' that came up after the NSZ changes. --E-960 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Thanks for the notice. François Robere (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

text

This will be deleted in 36 hours, so take your own off-Wiki copy if you want it. Zero^talk 09:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting and mysterious. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Your copy will need to be deleted for copyright reasons. Zero^talk 11:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Do ping me

If there are any Polish-Jewish articles discussion might have stalled but fixes are needed. I think most of the articles stabilized in the past few months, hopefully more because we reached consensus than because of the unfortunate topic bans, but I also haven't been that active. If there's anything you think we should work on, do say so. It would be great if we could reach consensus before said topic bans expire, so that when our colleagues come back there's less reason for any more disagreements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Piotrus, thank you for your attention! I've been away since the beginning of the month for personal reasons, so I don't want to knee-deep into discussions just yet. Nevertheless, you're right in your observations, so I will raise some of the issues so we can at least get others' consent for the spirit of the changes, if not the details. François Robere (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edit added information that isn't in the book you use as a source

[23] I have the book "The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945" in front of me, there is nothing about Antyk on page 385.Can you explain this? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The edit cites p. 358, not p. 385. François Robere (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

On references

While both solutions have pros and cons, I'll point out that the old school style of references ("five refs for Piotrowski, etc.") allows Google Page links to individual pages. Unifying references often removes those links, making verification a bit more problematic. Not that I intend to revert one change over another, just pointing out why I generally prefer and use separate refs for each page if possible (and links are available). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

My own 2 cents - I like individual references for the same source - unless they are a really tight page range (e.g. 2-3 pages). This is particularly true when content is under V/NPOV contention.Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Help:Shortened footnotes?

This is particularly true when content is under V/NPOV contention Why? You can add page numbers and quotes with {{r}} as well. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't like those too much, as they lower the readability of the Wiki code. Either way I'm not trying to enforce anything, so you can add them /back if you want. The catalyst for overhauling the references was the addition of multiple, separate references to Zimmerman by another editor, which really had no justification. By the way, I originally (another article, some months ago) tried to use {{r}} inside a <ref>, to allow multiple footnotes with quotes that all use the same citation (eg. <ref>{{r|Source}}, p. 5: "quote"</ref>), but it didn't really work. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comments at AfD

I see that you moved the reflist-talk that displayed the references in my comment at this AfD. Please don't change my comments. I wanted the references to be seen at that point, and I have moved it back. If more reflist-talk's are needed, they can be added at any time. There can be more than one in the discussion. Thank you. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Central European University

Dear François Robere! You undid the government response in the article, while at the same time added two noname someones' opinion to the page. In the wikipedia if we are discussing a debate, than the principle is that the argumentation of both sides must be presented equally, and can not be disqualified as "not RS on academia" etc. Your contributions raises the issue of POV pushing. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Please reconsider what you delete or not. It is not only an academic question at stake, but a legal issue - and in this field, the government totally has the right to respond.--5.204.115.190 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The "noname someones" published in major news outlets (NYC, WaPo and Vox), giving some credence to their name; while the government's derogatory response, referring to the "wooden house" in which the the CEU NY branch is located, cannot be taken as reputable with regards to the CEU's academic quality, which it purports to ascertain; nor can it be considered serious with regards to the university's regulatory compliance, given the government's attitude in general, and that spokesperson in particular to the university. We can cite it to establish a statement like "the government continues to claim the university did not hold up to its regulatory requirements", but we certainly don't need to quote it. As for NPOV: RS agree that this isn't a "debate", but targeted persecution (in fact, the government itself suggested as much). Thus, giving as much credence to certain government claims as we give to everyone else would constitute a WP:FALSEBALANCE. François Robere (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

1. calling a wooden cabin a wooden cabin has nothing to do with academia.
2. The guys, you refer as important journalist don't even have wiki articles...

It IS POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't refer to anyone as anything. You added a POV statement - want to do that? Bring sources that support it. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Why did you delete the US Ambassador's opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't? François Robere (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You deleted sourced info. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.21.166 (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

diff? François Robere (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Move review: Paradisus Judaeorum

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

As discussed in more detail at AE, I am warning you not to cast aspersions against others without convincing evidence. The Arbitration Committee has decided in this respect that "an editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. ... If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums". If you continue to engage in such conduct in topic areas where discretionary sanctions are in force, you may be made subject to bans, blocks or other sanctions. Sandstein 22:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't cast aspersions, I merely relied on your own statements: [There are indication] that they are a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles... with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles. Such single-purpose and tendentious editing is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV.[24] François Robere (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for personal attacks within the Eastern Europe subject area on the page WP:AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• What Sandstein said above, accusations of racist vandalism are unacceptable unless you can seriously back them up and contribute to mistrust and disruption in the topic area. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

First off, that's not what I said. Second, Sandstein himself made these comments: , I suspect that GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources; all in violation of any number of policies; [There are indication] that they are a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles... with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles. Such single-purpose and tendentious editing is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV.[25] And third, that user just edited in clear violation of AE and got a slap on the wrist,[26] and you're blocking me from the entire encyclopedia for a week? You're out of line. François Robere (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You said I would also like to note, again, that our admins have been consistently negligent in protecting this encyclopedia from ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism. The fact that Bella is still allowed to comment anywhere even vaguely related to Jews and Jewish history, after having committed more egregious violations of Policy and academic integrity than Tatzref ever has, is a sign of their failure. That you were implying a specific editor to be an ethnically-motivated vandal is clear. If someone is actually an ethnically motivated vandal, you provide proof with diffs and bring it to ANI and they will be blocked, but you don't get to use it as an attack and trump card in disputes, especially for requests that are apparently unrelated to the person in question. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

1. What I said was that [Bella has] committed more egregious violations of Policy and academic integrity than Tatzref ever has - that is well supported by Sandstein's comments in that case and doesn't require further proof. I did not accuse Bella of vandalism - that is your inference, and you should've asked for a clarification before sanctioning me for it. As for prejudice - the anti-Semitic context of the discussion is well established, as evident by Sandstein's own comments (for which he wasn't blocked, or even admonished): GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources.
2. The "unrelated editor" inserted herself into the discussion contrary to AE, yet you didn't sanction her. Hence my comment about admins not enforcing Policy.
3. The fact that you did not sanction her, nor the editor who commented on the account's singleminded crusade towards adding racist pseudohistorical sources, nor another editor who accused a third for [filing an] obvious "payback report" for the fact that [his] partner in edit wars... recently got indef blocked (an accusation he made many, many times before), suggests to me that you blocked me from the entire encyclopedia not for policy violation, but for criticizing admins. François Robere (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of events

Regarding this AE discussion and this diff, which resulted in a week-long complete block: I criticised the admins for allowing ongoing antisemitic abuse on pages related to the Holocaust and Polish Jewry. I did not single any user "out of the blue", nor did I make specific accusations that weren't already on AE record. The admins' reading of my comment as if I had done so was wrong, and their reaction punitive and disproportional. The first statement is a general critique, and should be read as such. The second statement is given as a handy example of a user who commented on that very discussion[27] despite a TBAN[28] and with no repercussions,[29] with an admin expressing his "trust" despite her previous infractions.[30][31] This statement does not include new accusations, but merely repeats what the user was already banned for - stuff that's on the record, that is not new, and that is supported by statements from several admins.[32] Given that I have no record of making inflammatory accusations, and my comment was devoid of animosity, I believe the proper course of action would've been to ask for a clarification. Sandstein opted for a warning,[33] but TonyBallioni decided to enforce a week-long block. Another user, who has long history of "casting aspersions" (per Sandstein himself), was topic-banned,[34] but wasn't removed from the discussion and successfully appealled the ban.[35][36] Another user, who made similarly inflammatory comments[37] was not sanctioned at all.

@Sandstein and TonyBallioni: I have some questions to both of you regarding the above.

1. Sandstein rightly pointed out that I have no record of blocks or even warnings; why, then, wasn't I allowed to explain or refactor my comment before any sanction taking place?
2. Why wasn't I allowed to continue taking part in the discussion like other "offending" editors? Volunteer Marek managed to get his "sentence" reduced by 2/3s just by staying in the discussion.
3. VM was t-banned; why was I blocked?
4. You (TonyBallioni) wrote on VM's appeal[38] that VM didn’t add diffs because he assumed I knew what he was talking about. The same applies here: I assumed Sandstein knew what I'm talking about, as he was the one who banned that editor, and earlier that day engaged (and absolved her). Why did you accept in that case but not in this one?
5. You also noted that the points VM raised could have been the basis for an AE report against Icewhiz... I don’t think it’s appropriate to be sanctioning someone for commenting on one AE thread about issues that would be a valid report in another. This isn't something VM said - it's your statement, and it could apply here equally well. Why didn't you raise it here, only there?

François Robere (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

First point: there’s a difference between a content dispute and what at face value looks like a tit-for-tat AE report. Second, if you had made the same report at AE as you made a statement, I would have blocked you and closed it for the same reasons I blocked you this time, namely, accusations of anti-Semitic vandalism without proof have an extreme chilling effect and are toxic. Finally, I’m not in the business of comparing sanctions: every situation is different and every editor and action is considered holistically. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: You haven't addressed any of my points.

1. there’s a difference between a content dispute and what at face value looks like a tit-for-tat AE report:
   1. "Tit-for-tat" is an assertion about VM's motives, which is exactly what you sanction others for doing. That's hypocritical.
   2. And as far as assertions, it's hardly one that should absolve him of responsibility. Since when is using AE to retaliate against others acceptable?
   3. Nor is it an excuse to ignore our respective histories - specifically his long, long history with WP:ASPERSIONS, and my non-existent one; nor for not even asking for clarifications. Are we in the business of facts, or beliefs?
   4. I'm not sure what you meant about a "content dispute". Is my complaint about content? Is a potential editorial bias about content? If it is, then it's not your jurisdiction and you shouldn't have intervened.
2. if you had made the same report at AE... I would have blocked you and closed it for the same reasons: You're just repeating what you said earlier, which is not helpful. Do read what I wrote and try to be helpful by telling me exactly which part you object, and why.
3. I’m not in the business of comparing sanctions: every situation is different and every editor and action is considered holistically Well, you're in the business of WP:ADMINACCT, and you haven't really explained how all of this sits well from a holistic perspective.

François Robere (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ve already explained my actions, and stand behind them, and answered your questions. That is what admin accountability requires: not that the sanctioned user agrees with their sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, but they ought to be understandable to a casual observer. Saying "the cases are different" without explaining why they're different, or using the term "holistic" as a buzzword, or asserting the veracity of your understanding of my comments while ignoring my own - these aren't "answers". François Robere (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Your statement at Arb/Clarification Request

"WWII is a major area of scholarship, and virtually all reputable sourced end up being published in English" - This is an extremely parochial, Anglo-Saxon-centric, ignorant claim which borders on racism. It's also completely false. Hate to break it to you, but English speakers, their bloody conquest of the world and all, do not actually have a monopoly on truth. Indeed, the more interlinked the world becomes and the more freely information flows across borders, the more we discover and the more obvious it becomes just how limited and, well, fucked up, this kind of Western-centric exclusivity actually is and how much damage it has done to human knowledge.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

And in this particular topic area the glaring fact is that most authors writing in English, with some notable exceptions, either don't have access to, or simply don't bother to consult, primary sources because these are not in English (or possibly French or German). And to be frank, most Western historians can't be arsed to learn a language that is not one of those three. Which makes them actually WORSE secondary sources, not better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you said in the first paragraph, but English is the lingua franca of the day, and if one wishes to communicate their findings to the broader research community they typically do so in English. This includes Polish and Polish-speaking historians (of which there are many more than you think, I believe), as well as English-, German- and French-. I stand by my analysis that this is a choice between recency and obscurity, and stability; and that if hadn't these many obscure, fringy or outright disreputable Polish-language sources brought in then we wouldn't need a vote on stability. Equally as important - we won't be losing too many high-quality sources, as many of those were filtered out (or ignored) for having the "wrong" politics. Case in point: the reputable Polish Center for Holocaust Research[39], which has a long list of Polish-language publications, yet is rarely cited here (and when it is, it's in English). So there's little to lose with that proposal, and a lot to gain. François Robere (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The reputable Polish Center for Holocaust Research has published translations of its main books and prepares a short version of Dalej jest noc. The Center has a number of ethical questions. Their works are generally biased, even Center's author Tomasz Frydel (Dalej jest noc) criticizes the bias https://www.academia.edu/32301232/The_Devil_in_Microhistory_The_Hunt_for_Jews_as_a_Social_Process_1942-1945_2017_ . Dr Proszyk, invited to write a part of Dalej jest noc, is rather critical regarding the goal of the book. http://proszyk.blogspot.com/2018/05/nienapisany-rozdzia-powiat-bielski.html Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

German opinions about German terror in Poland preferred here to Polish works. It's crazy. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

West German (and subsequent unified German) scholarship is extensive in the field, and is fairly independent of communist government suppression (1945-1989) or government induced historical revisionism (start date debated among scholars). Icewhiz (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Fox

Have you read The Fox Effect? It's not an accident that Fox is a propaganda outfit, it was the entire reason it was founded. Ailes believed that the real villains of Watergate were the Washington Post and New York Times. And incidentally, Network Propaganda is a very compelling argument against pretty much all right-wing media sources. 152.62.109.216 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks. I haven't read The Fox Effect, but I know of it; and I do refer to a couple of chapters of Network Propaganda. I wanted to avoid Fox News's history in that discussion as some Wikipedians would see it as irrelevant to Fox's conduct today; and while I disagree, I'm not set on convincing myself. François Robere (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that you are or were interested in creating an RfC on Fox News. I found a report from Media Matters for America on how Fox News mixes disinformation with the hard news every day in its hard news division at https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/05/13/fox-news-lie/223683 that was released on May 13, 2019. However, this report focuses on the actual video channel and not on the content on the Fox News website, so it could be somewhat irrelevant. I just do not have the time to start an RfC or read the whole report at the moment. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks! François Robere (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

May be relevant

Fox News' news (e.g. not pundits) division on climate change:

• Bill Sammon, the Fox News Washington managing editor, instructing Fox News journalists to dispute the scientific consensus on climate change: "A leaked email from the managing editor of Fox News Washington, Bill Sammon, during the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 reveals Fox’s scepti- cal policy towards climate change. Sammon advised Fox journalists to “refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question”." Page 174 of Marisol Sandoval. "From Corporate to Social Media: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in Media and Communication Industries". Routledge.
• Bret Baier, a straight-news anchor -“In February 2010, a paper on sea level rise that had previously been published in Nature Geosciences74 was formally withdrawn75 by the authors because of an error they had identified subsequently in their calculations. Fox News announced the development in this vein: “More Questions About Validity of Global Warming Theory.”76 In fact, the error in the calculations had led the authors to projections of future sea level rise that were too low!77” Page 223 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.”
• Bill Hemmer, a straight-news anchor: Promotion of Climategate falsehoods: "“This particular falsehood had been promoted recently by venues such as Fox News , e.g., Bill Hemmer on Fox’s America’s Newsroom, December 3, 2009: “Recently leaked emails reveal that scientists use, quote, ‘tricks’ to hide evidence of a decline in global temperatures over the past, say, few decades." Page 353 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.” Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of Mann's book. I'll check it out. François Robere (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May also be of interest:

• A guest on a Fox News 'straight news' program asserts that Obama caused the Great Recession. No pushback at all from the host, even though the assertion is insanity.[40] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hesgeth

Please be a little more careful in your future editing than adding mention of an obvious joke to a WP:BLP as if it was a serious statement made by said living person. I know you're on a crusade against Fox but that doesn't allow you to ignore some of our more serious rules. 199.247.46.106 (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not on a crusade against anyone. He said it on air, it was picked up by multiple RS, and I'm merely citing what those RS reported. As for the BLP aspects: if he's on air and has these beliefs, then it's notable; if he's on air, jokes about having these beliefs and is criticized by 3rd parties, then it's still notable. Do remember he has millions of viewers and his way with words is as relevant as anything to his article. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

'if he's on air, jokes about having these beliefs and is criticized by 3rd parties, then it's still notable.' No, it's not. Especially not in a BLP. Just getting noted by the media is not an automatic inclusion in an encyclopedia. The media covers jokes and offhand comments made by famous people every day. 199.247.46.106 (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it rarely cites the CDC in criticism of these jokes. Jokes that draw particular ire are notable. François Robere (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It got coverage for one whole day, largely thanks to the clickbaity headline nature of it. That's not 'particular ire'. 199.247.46.106 (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Restore comments that you deleted on the RS noticeboard

Please restore the comments that you deleted on the RS noticeboard Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It's the "edit conflict" page... I'll restore it. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jan T. Gross

In the BLPNB discussion you wrote "...that Poled killed between..." Did you mean to use the word "Poled"? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Damn! Thanks. François Robere (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

RE

diff - Just Do It. Well, OK, I don't want to sell shoes. I did find the program somewhere, and some of it is described in accounts in the article. Most of program details are in French (at least the sources I've found - I suspect there's Polish too somewhere, but I've been working of EHESS and French sources more than Polish). Icewhiz (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, I started. That's exactly what I found, and would rather have an official English version rather than translate everything. François Robere (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The don't speak English in France - it's a matter of national pride. Many might understand English, as a matter of necessity or practicality, but on principle they won't speak English on French soil (or any former colonial possession that still speaks French). Lingua Franca and all that. I'm not sure there is an English program. Many Poles (and Polish scholars) know French as well - strong historic bonds between elites in both countries (oddly - a bit like the French/Russian connection - skipping over Germany). Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Berlin moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Joseph Berlin, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hitro talk 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll add more, then. François Robere (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Re

To this. Oh no, I am not really involved in editing this page and the subject area. You are involved a lot, and most tellingly even after the end of the official arbitration, with ridiculous comments like that, litigious complaints and block shopping. Frankly, this is not helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

MVBW - you are very much involved, including in making POV changes to the Racism in Poland article not inline with mainstream sources. Furthermore, you should strike your accusation of "block shopping" towards FR as he, per your link, approached a single admin which is not shopping. Such false assertions are personal attacks.Icewhiz (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but all my assertions are supported by diffs, and they can be supported by a larger number of diffs if needed (for example, [41]). Also, no, I did not make any POV changes unsupported by refs in the article. This is an unsupported accusation on your part. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsupported by balance of mainstream coverage. Your accusation of "shopping" is false - you presented a single discussion with an admin - which is not shopping (shopping would be approaching several different admins), You should strike your false assertion, as it is a personal attack when unsupported by relevant diffs.Icewhiz (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This whole thing is a Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP because he raised same issue on four pages (forth is here [42] and suggested to block a user with whom he had a content disagreement (diffs above). My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Three, actually: One for an admin opinion on behavior (not a block - that would go to the boards); another for community input on sourcing; and finally ARBCOM, as it pertains an ongoing case (which, in itself, does not preclude seeking other remedies). François Robere (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You've presented evidence,[43] you've had evidence presented against you[44][45][46] - you're very much involved. The fact that you're following my edits (all of which are legitimate, none of which violates or circumvents Policy) is in itself telling. That particular message - unless you read both discussions and reviewed all ~15 sources, you can't make an honest claim against me, and I doubt you did. François Robere (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Here you started it. While I disagree with specific edits by Molobo (I think this needed a different wording and framing), I think your comment that "the suggestion that Poles were systematically exterminated ... is simply not true" is inflammatory and wrong. Of course the "policies" by Nazi with respect to Jews were much worse (no one disputes this), however they did conducted policies of intentionally exterminating other ethnic groups, as correctly described on the page Racial policy of Nazi Germany. My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That was different - if that had resolved the problem, we wouldn't have need for the other three.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the rest of your comment. You trimmed my statement[47] and you found your revision inflammatory? François Robere (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I know that Molobo is a highly opinionated contributor. But you making such a big story strikes me as something even more problematic. This is especially the case because your arguments are weak. For example, here you say: "Quote doesn't support your assertion" about this edit. How come? It does support the statement. Of course, knowing more on this subject, I would never frame this phrase as Molobo did, but your argument is wrong. More important, you are fueling a long-term conflict, even during the standing arbitration case... My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I know that Molobo is a highly opinionated contributor He's not "highly opinionated", he's biased and careless, and I'm not the only one who noticed.

How come? It does support the statement. No, it doesn't, as I repeatedly explained throughout the discussion.[48][49][50] I encourage you to re-read the sources, or in the very least the quotes, and see how they line up along these distinctions (and others introduced later in the discussion).

I would never frame this phrase as Molobo did How would you "frame" this phrase?

More important, you are fueling a long-term conflict I repeatedly offered an alternative phrasing, as well as asking Molobo for his own. I suggested following the advice from NPOVN twice. He made zero effort to compromise, or even to review his sources - he never admits a mistake, so trimming his additions isn't an option. The only thing that got him to change his behavior, if only temporarily, was messaging Sandstein and taking it to NPOVN. How would you have handled it? François Robere (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you simply deny what the sources say. For example, here (same subject) you tell the source does not say it was genocide, while the source clearly tells it was. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said the source describes specific actions rather than an "all out" campaign, and it does. François Robere (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I should AGF here, but what you are saying in these diffs does look to me as whitewashing crimes by Nazi against Polish nation. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how you could possibly read those diffs like that. There's a fine line that needs to be treaded here, so as not to make an already disgusting discussion unbearably so. I didn't enter this discussion lightly; I only did so because I think it's important both within and without Wikipedia (note, explanation). There are certain narratives that are being pushed here: the same editor who pushed this change also brought faulty sources to argue against property restitution; censored various bits on antisemitism in Poland; and even inserted a poorly-sourced statement to an article on a long-dead Israeli PM, about his father being "Judenrat". We ought to be ever more precise and careful if we don't want to present our readers with a skewed image of reality. François Robere (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Here is edit that you actually reverted on the page. Note that the version you reverted frames everything correctly, i.e. "Poland experienced race-based genocide by Nazi Germany in the 20th century in which people of Jewish, Romani, and Polish ethnicities, along with most of other Slavs and people of color, were classified as subhuman by Nazis". But you rephrased it. What was wrong? In the same diff, you changed wording "exterminated" [by Nazi] to "killed or murdered". Why? You also inserted text about Islamophobia - without consensus. All of that does look to me as a POV editing, and I do not really see any logical reason for doing this except pissing off a few contributors who are taking Polish subjects very close to the heart. Strangely, but it is actually you who complained about these contributors on arbitration pages and also to Sandsten. Sorry, but it does not look good. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

First off, the reversal in context: it was preceded by a IP editor removing the section on Islamophobia[51] and reordering the article (similar to Molobo's),[52] both of which were done, contrary to your claim, against consensus.[53][54][55]

Whether that version "frames everything correctly" is exactly the question, isn't it? And Molobo's sources make it pretty clear that it's not a settled question (eg. his Snyder article - one of his best sources - was written in respone to a dissent by Zuroff and Katz). That particular change of wording is explained here.

All of that does look to me as a POV editing Or a conservative approach to sourcing on a volatile issue?

Strangely, but it is actually you who complained about these contributors on arbitration pages It's "contributor", singular, and Ealdgyth and Icewhiz mentioned him as well. François Robere (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: What's the particular context of this? François Robere (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Behavioral expectations in Arbitration space

With regards to telling other editors to "get a fucking life" ([56]). Personal attacks are not permitted on our project, and that applies to arbitration space as well. SQL^{Query me!} 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@SQL: It's not a personal attack, but some good spirited criticism, which given the standards of discussions throughout the recent Arb case[57] I wouldn't have thought could be misconstrued. I may try to refine that comment to better convey the message. François Robere (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I consider "get a fucking life" to be a personal attack. If you could refactor that I would appreciate it. – bradv🍁 21:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@SQL and Bradv: No problem. BTW, now that you're both here, can you take a look at this (the second line in particular)? Thanks. François Robere (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very civil. If they refuse to retract it you could take it to ANI. – bradv🍁 21:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: I suggested that, but they didn't reply.[58] As you know from the Arb case (or just by looking at their TP[59]) this isn't the first time.[60] I believe the page is under WP:ARBEE and you would be well within your rights to act without approaching ANI; is that correct? François Robere (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision listed

The proposed decision in the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case has been released, and it contains one or more findings of fact or remedies which relate to you. Please review this proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on LGBT-free zone. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Categories aren't subject to a strict interpretation of WP:VERIFY, as they're used primarily for navigation and automation, and aren't "content". The category Gender-related violence is due there, as the subject touches on such violence (see LGBT-free zone#Demonstrations). What's more, some linguistic and sociological perspectives would view the very definition of such a zone as "violent", regardless of specific occurrences of physical violence. François Robere (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea how you decided that. WP:CATV: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category. Elizium23 (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry if you wish to use some mental gymnastics to apply a novel meaning to a word, but here on Wikipedia (that is to say, in the preponderance of reliable secondary sources upon which we base our articles,) violence means just what we choose it to mean—nothing more or less. Elizium23 (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See Political violence, Structural violence and Economic violence. François Robere (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that is a less strict interpretation of WP:VERIFY than that used for content, for which we have one very long policy page. If the only requirement is that It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories, then it's pretty clear from LGBT-free zone#Demonstrations. cf. Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, which has the categories Ethnic cleansing in the Americas (Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest#Impact on indigenous people) and Environmental disasters in South America (despite the word "disaster" not being used anywhere in the article) attached. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that political violence refers to violence and WP:CATV refers to WP:V? I am not sure where you're pulling out your extrapolations this time, but your claims are not based on any reliable secondary source, and that's what WP:V needs. So I'll tag the article. Please do use the article talk page, where I have opened a discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yet it's not all physical, or directed by the state: It can also describe politically-motivated violence by non-state actors... against other non-state actors. Non-action on the part of a government can also be characterized as a form of political violence, such as refusing to alleviate famine or otherwise denying resources to politically identifiable groups within their territory. (from that article). That seems to describe both some of the support of the "zones" (eg. by Clergy), and their very nature - denial of rights (not to say of existence) of certain "politically identifiable groups". François Robere (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Your WP:OR is not acceptable. Please furnish WP:RS which directly describe the declarations in Poland as "violence" and in particular "gender-related violence". That's what we mean when we say "Categorization must be verifiable". Elizium23 (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Your WP:OR is not acceptable. Please furnish WP:RS which directly describe the declarations in Poland as "violence" and in particular "gender-related violence". That's what we mean when we say "Categorization must be verifiable". Elizium23 (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See above on Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. François Robere (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

nobody cares. Your pet rainforest article says nothing about Polish politics. Elizium23 (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I see you've ran out of words? François Robere (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Bias

You wrote on Talk:LGBT-free zone: AFAIK no one else here is affiliated with any organization that's engaged in related activities. So, upon what do you base this knowledge? It is a fact that I have voluntarily declared (some of) my affiliations on my user page. It is also a fact that neither I, nor anyone else here, is required to disclose affiliations except when they are being paid to edit about them. The vast majority of editors here act pseudonymously and reveal as little as possible about ourselves! So I am intrigued by your insinuations (along with @Jackgrimm1504: that really nobody else but me could possibly have a bias regarding such a topic -- just because nobody else has volunteered to say so. Actions speak louder than words: I have been a Wikipedian in good standing for 11 years, with zero blocks, and I edit all sorts of topics and articles. I am not here to promote my bias, I am here to improve and build an encyclopedia. Once again -- if you believe I have a genuine conflict of interest then report it through the proper channels and don't attempt to air dirty laundry on an article talk page, where we discuss improvements to articles, not one another. Elizium23 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and you're right to have done so. It would've been bad if something like that popped up in a contentious area without disclosure.

I did not insinuate, I hypothesized (hence "AFAIK" and not a declaration of fact). I've had repeated exposures to some of the involved editors over the past year and a half (mainly over subjects pertaining to the Holocaust in Poland), and some of them are not anonymous, despite writing under a pseudonym.

Kudos on your good intentions; those can go a long way in a community like this. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your thoughts over this thread. ∯WBGconverse 19:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! François Robere (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Confirmation

It’s obvious, but I thought I'll ask you to confirm. Who are you referring to as that “one particular editor” here[61]?GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bella,

I didn't name anyone for a reason. The point isn't about any one editor or any one case, but about the system. I considered "allegorizing" the story to protect identities etc., but it was too much work and I doubt anyone who wasn't directly involved would bother digging in anyway. It's still in draft stage; if I'm told by an editor for the Signpost that it's too obvious, I'll adjust it. Again, this isn't about any one editor or one case, but about the system; as long as I can make those points, the particulars of the case don't matter. François Robere (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Please immediately remove anything that could be even slightly associated with me.GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not kidding. Are you? What in particular do you think might be associated with you? François Robere (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Unbelievable!GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

[62] GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. François Robere (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User:François Robere/sandbox/Dealing with racism on Wikipedia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bovlb (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bovlb: I didn't attack anyone - I didn't even name anyone. How does generalized, anonymized and valid criticism constitute an "attack"? François Robere (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to explain it to you beyond what others have already said in many venues. My recommendation for you is that you listen carefully to what others are telling you, and try harder to understand. Don't keep doing the same thing; try a different approach. Bovlb (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

There is simply no attack in that article so the warning is silly. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can start by explaining how a generalized, anonymized and valid criticism, who uninvolved members of the community say is untraceable and unsanctionable,[63] constitutes an "attack". François Robere (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

I accidentally blocked you, my sincere apologies. Guy (help!) 21:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That was a bit surprising, but no problem. Thanks! François Robere (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to remember that Marek is also interested in the Icewhiz situation, and he is as convinced that he is right as you are. Your best course is to make it really obvious which of you is trying hard to assume good faith. See what I mean? Guy (help!) 22:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Posting of personal information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information on Wikipedia.[note 1] Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.

I suggest you ask admins to remove edits where you posted links to article doxing one of Wikipedia users. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

You can't honestly be suggesting that linking to an article in a national paper of record is "doxing"?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Note

I have reverted your edit here as the discussion is now closed. If you have further comments about an arbitration decision, please consider following the appropriate channels as listed in the note which closed the discussion. – bradv🍁 16:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, well. François Robere (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust issues

Hi François, you said there was no way to invite people like Dreifuss or Grabowski to review our articles. Actually, there is. Any editor can invite them to review an article—or even just a particularly contentious section—and post their findings on a talk subpage or send them privately to the editor. Another way for them to get involved is through the Wikipedia education programme. They could use Wikipedia as a teaching tool and have their students make corrections. That would be extremely helpful, so long as the students used English-language sources by Holocaust historians. A lot of the problems in these articles could be fixed with the involvement of mainstream Holocaust historians. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Yeah, but here they'd be considered just regular users, and their opinions won't officially hold any added value (famous example). Wiki Education is good, but it's very different from just asking for a review, and (again) neither the students nor the instructor will have any unusual status. François Robere (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The Roth situation was very different. In the cases we're discussing, a Holocaust historian could write a review for publication on a dedicated talk subpage, and no one else would edit it. Or they could send the review privately to an editor. If their students were to edit an article, they'd be regarded as regular users, but if they use good sources, the edits would be much more likely to stick. The problem in a lot of these articles is the reliance on poor sources or sources that aren't in English and therefore can't be evaluated. The recent ArbCom ruling about English-language sources being preferred should help with that (and it's already policy; see WP:NONENG). SarahSV ^(talk) 18:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

They could, but again that review will have the same status of as any other comment (here's another example).

The problem isn't with good sources, the problem is with convincing others your sources are good, or alternatively that someone else's sources are inadequate. Professionals usually know "who's who" in their field; Wikipedians don't, so you need to explain it.

WP:NOENG existed, but wasn't enforced. We've had a lot of discussion around that too. François Robere (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:AE report

You are reported on WP:AE [64]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Lovely. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Steinbock moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Joshua Steinbock, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply

To this. I do not think this is a problem for WP because almost all contributors are anonymous in this environment. You do not know the gender, ethnicity, age, etc. of other contributors, unless someone was outed or wanted to disclose something about herself/himself. One can judge others only based on the pattern of editing, but this is people's personality, rather than anything else. In fact, I did not see any ethnicity-based or gender-based discrimination around here. If anything, I think admins were generally more supportive of editors who could be viewed as "pro-Jewish", but I see this along the lines of an "affirmative action". Speaking about other biases, I think there is a significant liberal/leftist/socialist bias on the site, but everyone has a bias, and having a bias is not a discrimination, and not really a big problem - as long as people agree to follow all editing and behavior rules. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course you do. François Robere (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages

Thank you for your recent articles, including Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations

I do want to draw your attention to this, in light of the fact that the WCC article, among others, falls into the scope, and it is quite possible controversial newspapers fails this remedy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of the "remedy" - I supported it. The intention behind that particular phrasing was to prevent historical distortion; here we're dealing with current affairs (as we do in eg. Act on the Institute of National Remembrance), so using a high quality news source shouldn't be a problem, especially as it's supported by several academics. François Robere (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering the large amount of factual errors and use of a hate site (full of antisemitic content, among other things) as a source, I really don't think we should be calling this particular article 'high quality'... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You can argue about the de/merits of this particular piece, but the newspaper in general has a solid reputation.

Again, the link to "Dramatica" doesn't excite me as much as it does you. It is, at the end, an account by Wikipedians of how they view the EEML affair, and it should be read as such. Was it written in poor humor? Yes. But "Dramatica" isn't 8chan AFAICT, and I don't believe most of the contributors to that particular article actually believe what they wrote. François Robere (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with concluding that Haaretz is in general reliable - but some pieces are not, and I don't think this one is acceptable. And ED is not an account of Wikipeians, but an account of trolls, likely 'editors' who were indef banned for harassment or such. It is hard to tell what is a joke and what is a real POV, when they are presented with over the top attitude (you may want to watch the new Joker movie for an illustration that real evil can be over the top and 'funny' sometimes too). It should not be seen as acceptable anywhere near Wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary table for Renaming Climate change article

Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, and only reflects my personal notes about what I think others said. The closer may or may not look at it. FYI, I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ooops

Thanks for the fast clarification. I'm still a bit confused.... where you wrote "hatting" to me (and I think most editors) that means using the archiving templates like {{Hidden archive top}}. I think you mean changing the way we now use the various WP:Hatnotes. If so, others may more easily follow your comment if you make an appropriate tweak. If you just change the original, I doubt anyone will complain. No one has commented on that aspect of your remark, and we're all working hard to keep organized. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Wiki-jargon :-P . You're again correct. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Evolution of terminology

We go through three main phases of evolution of terminology here.

1. A new or emergent term is always attribued: Thunberg spoke of what she describes as a "climate crisis"
2. A term reaches a level of acceptance but is only one of many terms in use, we can use the word in Wiki-voice but only when the sources do: Scientists discussed methods for addressing the climate crisis. Some politicians remain resistant to addressing climate change.
3. A term is the default, we can use it in Wiki voice even when the sources might use a variant. That's where we are with climate change denialism now, I think - only denialists deny that it's denialism.

That's how it seems to me, anyway. Guy (help!) 14:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

cf. Paradigm shift, Overton window. §2 is what I'm aiming for, and I think it accords with RS. François Robere (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

John Demjanjuk

After watching a documentary on Netflix I was looking through the article on John Demjanjuk. It appears to have been completely taken over by people claiming that Demjanjuk is innocent or should not have been tried, despite his conviction for being a guard at Sobibor in 2011. That's leaving aside whether he was "Ivan the Terrible" at Treblenka. I wonder if you might have a look at the sources employed. Can you think of anyone else knowledgeable about such things who'd be willing to cleanup that article?--Ermenrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The documentary is on my watch list, and I'll check the article. François Robere (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Request

Speaking about your edit summary here, I do not think this is covered by the sourcing restriction for Poland in WW II. However, just to be sure, I filed a clarification request at ARCA. My very best wishes (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this accepted on Wikipedia?

My family was killed by AK fascists, despite this my grandad served in the Red Army and liberated Poland from fascism. Is what going on the Home Army article OK on Wikipedia? Polish blogs and right-wing media? Aren't there rules against this? Is there management I can complain to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Joe,

First off, I suggest reading WP:RS (which is long and tedious, but important). In this topic area ("topic area" being a Wikipedia synonym for a "field"), there are specific sourcing restrictions in place due to a recent WP:ARBCOM decision. So no, that's not okay.

There are many ways to address content disagreements on Wikipedia, with different processes (and politics) associated with each. I suggest reading WP:DISPUTE for starters. Whatever route you take, try to keep your composure, seek WP:CONSENSUS and keep comments impersonal and on-point.

Many editors in this area have a personal connection to the subject, familial or other; be careful not to let it cloud your judgment. During the course of editing here you're bound to learn things you didn't know, some of which you may not like, but when they're well-sourced you'll have no choice but to accept. Know when to do that and move on.

If you need further assistance or guidance, feel free to message me. Cheers.

François Robere (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, that is some heavy reading, it's like taking a college course. Is there a management page I can complain on if I see someone flouting that ARBCOM decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Wikipedia likes process.

WP:AE is the venue, but it has a very specific format (see "Click here to add a new enforcement request" there) - keep it short and to the point, focusing on WP:DIFFs and specific violations, and keeping it light on commentary. Bear in mind AE requests can also WP:BOOMERANG, so be careful. François Robere (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged, François. If this mischief continues, I will take it to management after I read up on all these rules and procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD

I strongly suggest that the D part of this is used before AE. Those letters, not mentioned in that link, are not conductive to creating a good editing environment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, of course. Molobo's edits, however, were discussed ad nauseum in various forums, and he's well aware of how they're perceived. Plus some of his edits reverted reversals, so he surely knew about the problems with the content, just didn't care. But I still didn't file, exactly because discussion was ongoing with you; the reason I finally did file was his other edits, which blatantly distorted sources. That was a bit too much. François Robere (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong link in edit

Just FYI. In this edit [65] you gave this diff [66] as an edit by Molobo, when I think you meant this edit by Molobo that you linked to in the other thread above [67].--Ermenrich (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Problematic source in Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study

I have no intention of reporting you anywhere, but I just wonder if in light of the recent source remedy, you think that [68] is an acceptable source or not? It seems to be a self-published lecture, no better than the lecture notes you criticize at Talk:Home Army, and in fact even worse, as unlike AC's notes, it has no bibliographic citations or such. In other related news, I invite you to comment about source issues I raised at Talk:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. PS. I strongly suggest that no report should be made to AE about any source without a prior talk discussion about it, preferably at RSN. -_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I appreciate it. We can replace that with one of his books on the subject.

Again, I generally agree. Molobo was one of a very small group of editors whose sourcing practices and intentions I've completely mistrusted, all of whom are now either banned or blocked. Everyone else, I think - everyone "left standing" - is amenable to compromise, or at least discussion, which is the preferable course of action if disagreement arises. I certainly have no intention of filing anything against anyone if I know they can be better addressed on talk. François Robere (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Based on Molobo's unblock comment, I think he fits in the group of people amenable to compromise. Have you actually tried talking to him about sources or their interpretation? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Many times, as have several other editors and admins. I assume you're familiar with this thread? François Robere (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment

Due to your constant snipe remarks about my person, posting, addressing me by my wrong name, and repeated calls to sanction me to editors based on closed Arbcom case I suggest you read WP:HA Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing As per above I request that you cease making comments about me unrelated to discussed topic of Wikipedia article, address me by my full account name and stop trying to reopen Arbcom case which was closed long time. I am fully prepared to discuss subjects of articles, sources and other issues, but your constant addressing of my person instead of the subject at hand needs to stop.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount:

1. I do not "snipe" about your person, I respond about your edit practices.
2. It's not your "wrong name" as much as it is a shorthand ("Molobo"), but if you wish I can use an acronym instead (others have used "MMA" - I assume you have no objection?).
3. I have no interest in you beyond the quality and nature of your edits, which are sub-par and contentious. I'm far from being the only editor to express such concerns, as you well know[69][70] - you've even been blocked for this.[71][72] You've asked that I don't message you on your TP and that's fine, but I won't refrain from discussing your edits with others when they're at fault. I'm all for doing this upfront and transparently, but if it bugs you then I'll take that into account.
4. As for the ArbCom case, I've no idea what you're talking about.

Cheers. François Robere (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You can refer to me as MMA.

nature of your edits, which are sub-par and contentious My edits are quite valuable and contribute a lot.For example discovering false information inserted into Collaboration in Poland article, after going through the effor to actually taking physical copy of the book in question and discovering no such information was in the book[73]

you've even been blocked for I was never blocked for sub-par and contentious edits but due loose definition of what reliable source is-which is now subject to clarification procedure, and the block was highly controversial.

Now that we got this out of the way, let us go back to editing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

That's unfortunate that you think so, because it means that you've taken none of the feedback you've received from others to heart.

Re: Madajczyk - you've been asked to provide a scan of the book including frontispiece and you never have, so there was no way for any of us to actually verify your claim.

You were blocked for violating sourcing restrictions in a sensitive topic area. They may have been poorly phrased, but there was nothing ambiguous nor "highly controversial" in applying them to the sources you wanted inserted.

Cheers. François Robere (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Lipski

François Robere, pls stop with selective editing, you removed a quote by a reliable historian Marek Kornat, who is coming out with a biography of Lipski, and gave several interview on the matter since Putin's remarks inlcuing here on PolishRadio [74]. Since, this false claim about Lipski was made just a few days ago, news website will be the only sources that will have a direct reference to the issue. Also, the Union of Jewish Communities in Poland put out a statement in which they criticized Putin's remarks about Lipski, citing an example of when Germany started to expel foreign Jews living in the country, Lipski and the Polish diplomatic service rendered them assistance, so statements opposing the anti-semitic narrative about Lipski are justified. So again, pls refrain form selective editing of the text. --E-960 (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

By "selective editing" you mean "removing a source that does not conform to TA sourcing expectations"? They don't contain an exception for current affairs or politically-sensitive material. François Robere (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Rzeczpospolita is reliable

I think that AE ruling is pretty clear: [75]: "Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) is, judging from its article, a leading mainstream Polish newspaper and therefore a "reputable institution" in the sense of the remedy. Using it as a source does not violate the remedy.. " The clarification requests to Arbcom did not seem to have produced any conclusive rulings and the remedy in question has not been clarified or adjusted since said clear AE ruling was made. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC) PS. Rather than try to reinterpret the Arbcom ruling, I'd suggest tagging those parts with {{better source needed}}, and we can discuss that particular article at WP:RSN if needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ARCA supercedes AE. According to Arb: "I'm not willing to expand to news sources at present".[76] Ergo sourcing expectations exclude newspapers, and admin's interpenetration was wrong. François Robere (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I asked said admin and it seems he disagrees: User_talk:Sandstein#Is_this_correct?. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I've asked him something. I agree we should tag the source while continuing the process elsewhere. I do want to get a clear answer on the what the ruling entails, though. François Robere (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As you know well, I DID ask arbcom to clarify this. I even explicitly mentioned that newspaper. The result of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland_(2)_(January_2020) is, IMHO, a "whole lot of nothing", unless you can point out to anything useful (and binding) that anyone said. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

So have I. Other than WTT's suggestion that including newspapers would constitute an amendment - which implies newspapers weren't allowed by the original decision - I more or less agree. François Robere (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask for a clear ruling on newspapers. I don't think an opinion by one arbitrator is binding when not endorsed by others and voted upon. Particularly where one and only AE decision I am aware of ruled exactly the opposite. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeing these statements together[77][78][79] I now think it'll be redundant, but feel free to do so and name me as party. François Robere (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Zydokomuna in practice

Hmmmm. [80]. What do you think about this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A bit overdone. François Robere (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Strike that. Turns out those exact words are actually used by the source, which is highly regarded (and in this case published by a university press). While it is a primary source, there's an argument to be made under WP:SCHOLAR, as he was one of the founders and archivists of perhaps the first museum ever that was dedicated to the Holocaust. The best case is to find a secondary source that quotes him; the second best is to attribute it. One could argue for removal as well; I leave it to you to decide what to do. François Robere (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Friendly reminder about source restriction and your own take on newspapers not fitting it

Clashing with [81]...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The question is whether we posit it as an historical argument or one about current affairs. If it's about current affairs (the conspiracy theory and IPN's treatment) then I don't see a problem there. I've added attribution to avoid any doubt on whether this is an historical claim or a recent one.[82] What do you think? François Robere (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's better than it was. Whether such opinions are DUE is another issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't trust everyone hired by the IPN. François Robere (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dalej jest noc

In an off wiki discussion someone pointed this article is non-neutral, and I tried to remedy it a bit. I don't know who else may be interested in this topic that is, well, not topic banned or worse, and the more eyes the merrier, etc. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I'll go over it. François Robere (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 "hounding" accusations

April 2020 "hounding" accusations

WP:HOUNDING Please halt WP:HOUNDING, following me around and reverting my edits as you did here: [83] and here: [84] and here [85] and here [86] and here [87] and here [88] PS Also. Do you have a source that Adam Mickiewicz was an Lithuanian? I advise you self revert. Thank you. GizzyCatBella🍁 14:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: I'm not hounding you, I'm reviewing your edits. After discovering that you've been removing material from various articles under false pretense (as explained here), I've decided to check further back: in Naftaly Frenkel and Prosto z mostu you falsely claimed that a statement wasn't supported by a source; in List of Lithuanians you removed Adam Mickiewicz's Lithuanian background, and in Adolf Warski you highlighted Warski's German one, creating a redundancy in the text. The other articles - Ełk riots and Hijabophobia - relate to current prejudices in Poland, which is something I've been following since before this supposed "stalking". Speaking of "stalking": you follow my "sandbox",[89][90] you followed me to Sandstein's TP ,[91][92] WP:ANI, IPN, Trump peace plan... Take it to ANI at your own peril. François Robere (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Oh, and three more: PAX Association, German retribution against Poles who helped Jews,List of cities in Israel François Robere (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Are you describing my struggles to defend myself against your repeated attempts to get me sanctioned "stalking"? Interesting. Do you really want me to formulate my concerns on the relevant notice board? I simply asking you respectfully AGAIN - please stop following me around and stop your repeated attempts to get me blocked under misleading and stretched to the max pretexes. PLEASE. Thank you.GizzyCatBella🍁 16:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Maybe if you stop removing sourced content without good reasoning people will revert you less. Reverting poor changes is not hounding. Somebody's got to do it. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Stop the grandstanding, Bella, you're not anyone's victim. The AE request is moving towards a statement that you've breached your T-ban and a warning not to do so; if that's "misleading", go sue the admins. François Robere (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC) François Robere - Please note that User:Volunteer Marek got a topic ban because he “followed” Icewhiz to several articles. In fact, he “followed” fewer Icewhiz edits than you “followed” my edits, and still got a topic ban. So I'm asking you very respectfully yet again. Please stop following me around. GizzyCatBella🍁 16:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Bella, again, stop the nonsense. When you appear out of the blue on some TP claiming one of my sandbox drafts mentions you (though it names no one), it doesn't make a good case for you being "hounded"; neither is appearing on a bunch of pages you've never edited before (or even in TAs you've never edited before), just minutes or hours after I have. I don't "follow" anyone. I occasionally review others' work - particularly those who've been sanctioned for promoting their own views at the expense of WP:BUILDWP, or who've been known to introduce errors into articles. This is in complete compliance with policy: Many users track other users' edits... Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. Had I "followed you around" like you claim, I would've dealt with those diffs in real time, not 2-3 months after the fact. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC) How less than 1 day turned into "months" all of a sudden? After I made an edit here [93] you reverted me withing 23 hours on the article you never edited before, right here [94]. You followed me here and reverted within 4 days [95]. Again, the article you never edited before. Please stop.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Stop playing coy and sidestepping the question, Bella. You commented or edited on several articles - including my "sandbox" and at least one TA you've never touched before - moments after I have. You can't say the same about these two diffs, which - as I already stated - relate to current prejudices in Poland, which is something I've been following since before this supposed "stalking". Cheers. François Robere (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC) I am very disappointed with your responses because of you disregarding my reasonable pleas to stop tracking me around. I have tried repeatedly, and I was trusting that you will at least accept my concernes with some kind of understanding. Instead, you ventured to ridicule my concerns (playing coy? me?) which hurt me deeply. Clearly, all these issues will have to be dealt with elsewhere. Thank you for your time.GizzyCatBella🍁 19:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC) FR, can you pretty please consider that we are all here to build the encyclopedia, and working together is preferable to fighting? We should assume good faith and work together to improve the articles. Reporting others instead of trying to discuss things with them, mentor them even if you feel you know better, is not very constructive. I would be happy to act as a mediator, if you have concerns over editing of Bella, how about asking me to review it first? I would also be happy to advise Bella on whether an edit is fine or breach the T-ban. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC) @Piotrus: I believe that's true for the majority of cases. I can't find an acceptable explanation, however, to why an editor would repeatedly remove information that doesn't align with particular politics under the false pretense that it isn't support by the cited sources. Can you explain it (I'm not asking rhetorically)? And it's not out of the blue - this editor has a history of similar edits (you can check her ban discussion, TP), for which she's been repeatedly warned (including by me). In fact, she's probably the main reason for why we have fair representation DS on an entire TA. If I trusted more talk will do the trick, I would've done it. I appreciate your good will and I appreciate that you dislike "the boards" as much as I do, but I'm struck by the fact you'd suggest we "mentor" GCB - an editor of two years, 5000 edits and lots of boards involvement - on the basics of Policy. I'm also concerned that this generosity doesn't extend equally to all parties: you argued for several banned or blocked editors, but not for Icewhiz. You argued against what you believe is off-Wiki collaboration - going as far as using the term "meatpuppet" - but when MMA (or any of a number of other editors) drops out of "Wiki-vacation" straight into an AE discussion you don't seem to mind. You're worried about Icewhiz's "socks" - unproven as of now - but I rarely see you say anything about any of the others roaming the TA. And herein lies the problem: I'd like to believe your suggestions vis-à-vis GCB, MMA and others stem only from how you feel we should conduct the community process (and - broadly speaking - I would agree), but seeing as disregarding the disciplinary aspects of the process would disproportionately benefit some editors over others, I'd be remiss not to be cautious. That said, I'm as happy as always to collaborate with you on anything content-related, and appreciate you pointing certain things my way. I will certainly do the same. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC) If you link a diff for my review where some info was unfairly removed or such, I can examine it. I can't really comment on generalities. As for Icewhiz socks, WP:DUCK is pretty clear, but yes, it's inconclusive since apparently privacy concerns prevent checkusers from saying stuff clearly. Shrug. The evidence is quite clear. If you would like me to comment on some other sock, please link it to me, and I'll try my best to tell you if I see a similarity to anyone else, or comment on your suspicions. As for MMA commenting on AE, I honestly don't see it as any different from you doing the same. Which, btw, means I am also concerned about his actions, which are not very conductive to friendly relations. But given that you have reported him to AE before and such, I don't think it was he who started this. I can only recommend that you try to be more 'friendly' to others, since looking at the recent discussions between you and Molobo, and now you and GCB, I am worries about how it will all end. Battlegrounds are not something we want to have. Why can't you extend the same good faith to them as you do to me? I know you are here to build an encyclopedia, and so are they. It's not good if this ends up spiraling into more sanctions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC) If you link a diff for my review Well, I just put a pile of them at AE where you commented, so... If you would like me to comment on some other sock There's been mentions of the socks in several articles, including in one discussion with MVBW and yourself some time ago. VM, I think, wondered if it's a user called "Kaiser..." something. There's also "PiotrusVM" (or something?) who's also, obviously, not Icewhiz. And they all fight among themselves, which suggests either one very busy "puppet master", or several. I honestly don't see it as any different from you doing the same Exactly. But you never say "hey, I think you lot are coordinating offline! This makes no sense!" to them, do you? And it's not like MMA has an opinion on most of these - his involvement usually entails nonspecific support and general accusations - which should trigger your "puppet alert" much more than me checking back on an editor with whom I've had long, pointless discussions prior to her T-ban (and short, pointless discussions after). But given that you have reported him to AE before and such, I don't think it was he who started this So you honestly think that the fact that he's been warned by 5-6 editors and admins before I filed against him counts for nothing? (we've had this discussion last November, I believe) I can only recommend that you try to be more 'friendly' to others I'm exceedingly friendly with you, MVBW and E-960, both of which "filed" against me in the past. I'm friendly to any editor new to the TA as well, possibly to my disadvantage (having been accused of being too friendly with purported "socks"). In actuality one has to make an effort for me to be overtly unfriendly. Why can't you extend the same good faith to them as you do to me? Well, because their behavior hasn't fundamentally changed despite repeated discussions. If eg. GCB started sourcing her edits impeccably and never showed any sign of bias, I wouldn't care in the least what she edited, but she doesn't. The only time I see her change her conduct in any meaningful way is after I file an AE - then she flatters the admins excessively for their "wise" and "valuable" advice which she promises to adopt, never mind that for all intents and purposes it's the same as the one she vehemently rejected a week before coming from me. I'm with you on preventing this from becoming a "battleground", but ANI/AE aren't the only path by which TAs devolve into one. Recall the reason we started resorting to the boards two years ago was stonewalling and incivility; if these didn't exist, we wouldn't need ANI and AE to begin with. Perhaps instead of asking me to talk, you should ask the others to listen. François Robere (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC) @Piotrus: And again you ask for concessions from me, and me alone. You've criticized my relatively mild tone, but had naught to say about VM's or GCB's; you've asked me to WP:AGF but no one else; you suggested my concessions aren't enough, but you always argue others' are too much. You've had naught to say about the blatant WP:HOUNDING and WP:FORUMSHOPPING by three of your peers, and none of their errors faze you. I've always assumed good faith on your side, but this is a glaring double standard. François Robere (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC) I expect everyone to observe AGF. I am not familiar with anyone stalking or hounding you. What are the diffs for you being harassed? Sorry if I seem biased, but what I am seeing is people complaining that you are harassing them, and when I look at your AE complains about them, they seem to focus way too much on the letter of the law and not its spirit. I want to eliminate the battlegrounds I see, but I don't think that doing so through nuclear option (trying to get one's opponents banned) on borderline technicalities is the best way to create peace. I am however open to reviewing diffs if you think others are harassing you or otherwise impolite or such. But please, present diffs. What can I say about generalities? Sure, it takes two to tango, and VM, GCB and MMA have not been perfect gentlemen or ladies when it comes to interacting with you, neither. But in the last few months, at the very least, it seems to me you have been the one who has been seeking them out, not the other way around. If I am wrong - diffs, please. Which of those pinged you, followed your edits, or launched merit-less AE or such complains about you? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC) I'm not going to diff you discussions you yourself participated in just yesterday. I know you're following, I know you've seen all of it, and I'm not playing this game anymore. Evidence of GCB's hounding is in this thread. You've seen it, then you followed her (and me) to RexxS's TP. VM's "triple surprise" is in the edit history. You commented on it both here and on RexxS's TP, where VM left yet another disgusting comment. You've been also been around for virtually every board discussion I ever presented evidence in, and you know what ArbCom concluded about VM.[96][97] You've also been around MMA for long enough to know of every single issues with his edits. You know he's been here on and off since his block, and you know he somehow found his way straight to AE after being away for a month. I'm not going to diff you things you already know. Last few times I followed up on your questions you went strangely silent,[98][99][100][101] and I've a sense that if I wear myself out looking for a dozen diffs it won't change a thing. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC) WP:HOUNDING Per WP:HOUNDING please stop following me around like you did on Mragowo article and others you have never edited before I did[102].You have engaged in following me around before[103] and I ask you to stop this now. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC) @MyMoloboaccount: Fixing recurring mistakes that you've been repeatedly asked to address (including by admins[104]) does not constitute "hounding": Many users track other users' edits... Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. @Piotrus: You offered your involvement, so here. If you want I can ping others who've been involved on this; maybe together you'll find a solution that doesn't pass through sanctions. No one wants to distress anyone, but we more or less exhausted the "talking" options and I'm out of ideas. François Robere (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Well, it really seems pretty simple to me. Stop reverting one another, stop reporting one another, etc. Do your editing interests really intersect? That said, I really am confused re the edit history of Mikołajki, you pinged Molobo (in edit summary?) why? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Do your editing interests really intersect? We both do WWII history and Polish-Jewish relations, so yeah. Plus he recently segued into Israeli history, which is a minor Wiki-interest of mine. Since he only does one other TA at the moment, and it too is centered on Poland (specifically Polish-German relations), it's a significant overlap on his end; less so on mine. Stop reverting one another, stop reporting one another, etc. Again - no problem, but he really needs to start taking criticism to heart (or are you suggesting we let his mistakes persist "in the wild"?). You have to understand there are other editors watching, so if MMA doesn't clean up his act he will eventually get reported. Re: Mikołajki - that was based on an old revision, so I reverted it.[105] The CE had already been done by another editor by then, so I didn't change anything else. Pinging MMA was meant to alert him to his CE problems, as he was continuing to edit and introduce errors elsewhere. François Robere (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC) I can give you one. Stop stalking me and my edits. As per WP:Hounding Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. You are perfectly aware that I have asked you to stop harassing me numerous times and you continue to stalk my edits on articles you weren't involved just after I have edited them.There are thousands of other editors and yet you are singling out me. I will leave no further comments here and I hope you finally will stop following me around on Wikipedia, stalking me, and posting on my talk page. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC) April 2020 In this edit at 20:45, 31 March 2020 you removed properly sourced content and the source without explanation. That is the first edit you made to that article. Your edit summary was ping|MyMoloboaccount. In this edit at 20:46, 31 March 2020 you removed properly sourced content and the source without explanation. That is the first edit you made to that article. Your edit summary was ping|MyMoloboaccount. If you can't come up with a convincing explanation of those edits made within a minute of each other, or a full apology and assurance that this sort of thing won't happen again, I'm going to block you indefinitely for WP:HOUNDING. --RexxS (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Hey RexxS, I removed no information, properly sourced or otherwise: the first was supposed to be a simple CE, but I discovered I was working from an older version and self-reverted (22:57, 31 March 2020 (Edited from older version. I hate MW.)), and since similar changes were already implemented by another editor (19:18, 29 March 2020 (→‎History: background)) I saw no need to involve myself further. The second is a similar story (22:55, 31 March 2020 (Edited from older version)), with the overall effect being again just CE.[106] So no information was removed. As for the problems addressed by my copyedit, see these comments made by admins as early as March of last year: [107][108][109][110]. According to policy reviewing an editor's contributions with the purpose of "fixing unambiguous errors... or correcting related problems on multiple articles" is allowed, and the admins' comments show that this is just such a case. But I don't actually need to "follow around" that editor - most of their contributions are in a single TA which I've been involved in for over two years, so they naturally pop up on my "watchlist". Nevertheless, if you think the occasional CE causes unreasonable distress to this editor, I'm more than open to suggestions as to how this could be better resolved. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC) So your explanation is that you made the same mistake of editing old versions of two different articles within a minute of each other, in both cases using the same edit summary, pinging the same editor? Which "unambiguous errors" were you fixing, and why didn't you mention fixing those errors in your edit summary? I'm not seeing what was unambiguous about removing sourced content, and I'm getting the impression that you think "fixing unambiguous errors... or correcting related problems on multiple articles" is some kind of get-out-of-jail card that absolves you of hounding another editor. It doesn't. The best resolution so far still looks like an indef for you. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Please don't edit your comments after another editor has replied to them. I simply don't believe that either Mikołajki or Mrągowo were on your watchlist, as your first edits to either article were directly to the section where MyMoloboaccount had edited two days earlier. I don't think an "occasional CE causes unreasonable distress to this editor", but I do think that following an editor to articles you've never before edited and attempting to amend their contributions while pinging them in an edit summary is very likely to be stressful to them. Steps will have to be taken to ensure there's no repetition of that. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Yeah, sorry. There was an edit conflict and I decided to push the change and update you in my next reply. I simply don't believe that either Mikołajki or Mrągowo were on your watchlist No, they weren't, but he was pushing a set of similar changes (removal of German place names from articles on mixed cities) to about 20 different articles in the span of two days,[111] so it was hard not to notice regardless. Mind I only edited two of these. So your explanation is that you made the same mistake of editing old versions of two different articles Yes, it is. You load your "watchlist" (or some revision of some article) at noon but only get back to it a couple of hours later, by which time it's dated and you end up pushing a change to an old revision. I assume it's happened to you as well. I'm not seeing what was unambiguous about removing sourced content Again, neither edit removed any content, sourced or otherwise - both were only CE: [112][113] Which "unambiguous errors" were you fixing The same errors mentioned by Ealdgyth: lack of articles and punctuation marks, spelling mistakes, stops following (instead of preceding) refs, newlines within refs etc. So for example: in 1898 election, Polish candidate Zenon Eugeniusz Lewandowski received 50% of votes in Mikolajki. — [114] Becomes: In the 1898 election, Polish candidate Zenon Eugeniusz Lewandowski received 50% of votes in Mikolajki. — [115] And .The town became the seat of local county in 1818, with its first landrat being August von Lyśniewski In 1871 Sensburg became part of the German Empire during the Prussian-led unification of Germany. In 1897 the town became connected to the railway system, which went from Bischofsburg (Biskupiec) to Rastenburg (Kętrzyn/Rastembork). In 1903 thanks to donation by Edward Pałasz the city managed to acquire its own forest area where funds donated by Edward Pałasz the city managed to acquire its own forest area where recreational facilities were build for local inhabitants. — [116] Becomes: . The town became the county seat in 1818, with its first Landrat (country executive) being August von Lyśniewski. In 1871 Sensburg became part of the German Empire during the Prussian-led unification of Germany. In 1897 the town became connected to the railway system, which went from Bischofsburg (Biskupiec) to Rastenburg (Kętrzyn/Rastembork). In 1903 the city received a donation from Edward Pałasz to acquire its own forest, where it then built recreational facilities. — [117] Why ping him instead of mentioning the errors in the edit summary? Because he already knows what the errors are - they've been "repeatedly pointed out" to him, to quote Ealdgyth.[118] But that hasn't helped, so maybe pinging him to a concrete issue will. The bottom line is this isn't about distressing anyone. If what really concerns you is "pinging from unfamiliar articles", then I've no problem avoiding that - it's the first time I tried it, and it obviously hasn't achieved its goals. If it's something else, then I'm sure we can find a solution that keeps everyone happy, MMA included. François Robere (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC) References So you found your way to both Mikołajki and Mrągowo by following MyMoloboaccount's contributions. You load your "watchlist" (or some revision of some article) at noon but only get back to it a couple of hours later, by which time it's dated and you end up pushing a change to an old revision. I assume it's happened to you as well. No, it's never happened to me. If somebody has edited a page that I opened for editing a couple of hours ago, I just get a edit conflict. If I open an old revision of a page for editing, I get a big box saying You are editing an old revision of this page. If you publish it, any changes made since then will be removed. You may wish to edit the current revision instead. Why did you open an old version of a page for editing? Was it because that was the version with MyMoloboaccount's edit? You followed MyMoloboaccount to articles to add missing definite and indefinite articles, and punctuation marks, and to move punctuation before references. You pinged MyMoloboaccount because "maybe pinging him to a concrete issue will" help them fix those sort of errors. According to Volunteer Marek, you've been in dispute with MyMoloboaccount over various issues for months. Look, you need to understand how this looks to an outsider. Two editors are in conflict. One looks through the other's contributions and then edits articles they had never before edited to change the other's edits. Let me explain, in case it's not already obvious, if you're in conflict with another editor and they have already complained three months ago about you following their edits, it's an incredibly bad idea to then take it on yourself to follow them again and edit their contributions. No matter what you think your intentions are, that behaviour is indistinguishable from wiki-hounding: "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing ... for no overridingly constructive reason." I don't accept that it has to be you who corrects MyMoloboaccount's grammatical errors. So, last chance, what assurances will you give that I won't find you creating the same pattern of contribution-following an editor you're in conflict with in the future? --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC) I'll avoid MMA's "contribution list" for the next few months if that will reassure you. As for the rest: In this case I have, yes. Other edits of his from the last few days simply appear on my "watchlist". I was not aware that that is a sanctionable offense. Yeah, and I assumed it was the most recent one. It can also happen if you have multiple tabs open for a single article, or if the edit history hasn't been refreshed. It's silly, but MW hardly does any AJAX, so here we are. In both cases I self-reverted and left only the useful stuff, as you saw in the diffs. And spellcheck, and make sure everything matches (in the past he also had issues with sourcing,[119][120][121][122][123] but this wasn't the case this time). I took a couple of edits that were particularly voluminous, since they were more likely to contain errors than the small ones. As it turns out, while I was correcting just these two, another editor was reverting him no less than ten times in seven different articles.[124][125] Didn't report that one, though. I mean, I could just leave the errors in place, but what would that achieve? I'll happily discuss Volunteer Marek and his hounding with you later. Suffice to say he's been looking for absolutely every opportunity to swipe at me for a long time now (eg. [126][127]), presumably because I've given evidence in the Arb case that resulted in his T-ban. You think pinging MMA from a new article is stressful? How about a guy who you know does not like you in the bit dropping on your TP three times in the middle of a sensitive discussion? (Or for that matter a guy on a month long Wiki-vacation dropping out of the blue straight into AE just to accuse you of "hounding"? That's seriously freaky.) Look, you need to understand how this looks to an outsider. Two editors are in conflict... Thanks for clarifying. That's exactly the reason I linked to Guy and Ealdgyth's comments - so you can get an "inside view" of this. It really isn't just "two editors in conflict" like it might look on the surface; one particular discussion (the one started by Guy) involved no less than eight editors (Volunteer Marek was looking for "socks" there as well, BTW. Almost got himself blocked). That's the point of all these diffs, and insofar as your judgment is based on the assumption that it's "just two editors", I really do urge you to contact the two admins. the same pattern of contribution-following an editor It's only two diffs, not a "pattern"... But anyway, as I wrote in the beginning - I'll avoid MMA's "contribution list" for the next few months if that will reassure you that there isn't an issue here. François Robere (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Well. it took me a while to catch up by reading through the diffs, but I think we are coming to an understanding. Piotrus gave good advice about letting others deal with GCB and MMA, and making sure you don't find yourself back in the same position in a few months time. You showed good sense in taking his advice about refactoring "hates your guts", so please think hard about the other advice he offered. I already spent time, as you might have expected, reviewing your contributions, and I have to say that if it were not for the breadth of your contributions outside the immediate area of conflict, I'd have blocked you by now. I'm not going to block you, although I'd really prefer it if you managed to keep away from GCB and MMA forever, but I won't try to enforce that. I think you can see it would be in your best interests to keep clear of them going forward, and I trust you will show more good sense in doing just that. --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)If I may insert myself here: I feel like FR is being ganged up on by other editors. Eastern European topics have a long history of rancor, unfortunately, as shown by the various ArbCom cases about them, most recently regarding the Holocaust in Poland. I do not think it's a coincidence that the current issue involves editors on different sides of that case. MyMoloboaccount also has something of a history of edits that push a pro-Polish nationalist POV and often feature incorrect grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I would post some diffs but FR has already pointed you to previous discussions. I was also aware of MMA's recent spat of removing German place names from districts of cities that previously belonged to Germany, and I myself was considering intervening. The reason I didn't was that other editors had the issue in hand and after my previous experiences dealing with the unpleasantness of this topic area I had little desire to involve myself. Just look at MyMoloboaccount's version of "discussion" on talk pages: [128], [129]. Rather than discussing the issue of sources, MMA goes straight to making completely irrelevant arguments about the Wola_massacre, evidently focusing on Polish suffering rather that on the issue at hand, which is whether a (Polish!) RS says this district has a German name. My point is, it is very reasonable for another editor to be concerned about MyMoloboaccount's edits. Maybe FR did not go about this the right way, but I think his underlying concern is justified and is shared by other editors. I just hope this is taken into account when considering whether he needs punishment now.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC) I've been trying to stay out of this latest round of EEML drama but I agree with Ermenrich. You can see Archive 4 of my talk page for a lengthy discussion about Molobo's editing with Molobo and a half dozen other editors and admin (including FR)–and, before that, there was lengthy discussion during the Poland Arbcom case. Whenever Molobo's edits get scrutinized, the account stops editing for weeks or a month (see, most recently, Feb. 18), only to show up again to defend certain editors (EEML) when they are taken to noticeboards (most recently Mar. 25) , and then, when the heat is on, the account stops editing again (most recently Apr. 1). This pattern has been ongoing for a long time. Along with re-appearing for noticeboard discussions, the account makes the same POV edits over and over again, such as edits that purport to say that non-Jewish Poles were the primary targets and victims of the Holocaust. As a result, multiple editors will go through all of Molobo's contribs whenever the account re-activates, in order to do clean up. I'm one of those editors. Rexx, respectfully, if you are reading this situation as Molobo being hounded, you are mistaken. The only reason Molobo escapes accountability is because of the account's regular "disappearing act" (which it has done again on Apr 1). So, for example, because of the recent Apr. 1 "retirement notice" (which retirement will only last until the next noticeboard report concerning Eastern Europe topics), I cannot file an ANI or Arbcom. I have to wait until the account re-activates, and then I have a narrow window between the next batch of problematic edits, and the next "retirement". You don't have to believe I'm right. Just wait and watch. The next time an EEML editor is reported to a noticeboard, you'll see the Molobo account re-activate. You can set your watch to it. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Ermenrich: "Maybe FR did not go about this the right way, but I think his underlying concern is justified and is shared by other editors" There's no "maybe" about it: François Robere didn't go about it the right way. Their underlying concern did not justify their behaviour, and the fact that other less involved editors share the concern is a further reason why they ought to be leaving it to those others. My advice to you is to step away from this and let it be. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC) @RexxS: Who's "less involved"? François Robere (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Please don't test my patience. I'm quite capable of changing my mind if I see further BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Drop the stick while you have the chance. --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC) @RexxS: No intention to do that. I appreciate that you actually followed someone's comments at AE - it's not always clear that admins do that. It's also nice to hear that the "breadth of [my] contributions" is appreciated, even if it's in this context. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've written a thorough explanation of the above, which I'll make available on request. As of May 2020, VM remains T-banned and GCB's T-ban lift request has been denied.[130] Several discussions have taken place within the TA since this affair was concluded, including the following: [131][132][133][134]. François Robere (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As of April 2021:

1. A bilateral no-fault I-ban was placed between myself and one of the participants, though it's unclear if it reflected admins' consensus.[135]
2. Another participant was blocked for canvassing on pl.Wiki.[136]
3. The involved admin was desysopped.[137]

François Robere (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hi. I don’t know what this is about, but it’s probably a bad idea to disparage people based on their looks on an administrators notice board. Kleuske (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I beg your pardon? Are you suggesting Keir Starmer is unsightly? This Keir Starmer? How very dare you! François Robere (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Two sides of the coin

FH undoubtedly represents one side of the debate. I just created an article on a book representing the other (and more recent) view, Such a Beautiful Sunny Day: Jews Seeking Refuge in the Polish Countryside, 1942–1945. Feel free to help expand it (and maybe you can help locate more reviews, I linked one on talk I couldn't access). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed some reviews from both articles on grounds of WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations. Otherwise it's fine. François Robere (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest preserving them in form of links in the EL section, which wouldn't run afoul of the APL I believe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Done for the PR. I'm reluctant to do that for the reviews and the intro, unless they've also been published at a relevant journal. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to refactor personal attacks

Dear Francois, I really hope our discourse does not degenerate into personal attacks. If I ever say something you find offensive, you are welcome to ask me to refactor it. Which is why I'd also ask you to refactor the comments at You're coming awfuly close to claiming racist perceptions are based on objective reality. and antisemitism is the result of Jews being "collaborationist communists", which is what you're promoting here. I find your recent comments way over the top and I'd appreciate an apology. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, this comment of yours is really inappropriate: "I'd have thought that by now you had done enough reading in this topic area to understand that antisemitism and like don't appear out of the thin air." The comment seems to blame Jews for antisemitism. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It is entirely inappropriate to make such conclusion, and I'd ask you to refactor your comment and apologize as well in light of WP:AGF/WP:NPA. Jews are not to blame for antisemitism, no more than Poles for antipolonism or LGBT people for anti-LGBT sentiments. I have no idea how anyone could misread this comment. All I am saying is that there are reasons for ethnic hatred (fear, jealousy, ethocentrism, etc.). Those reasons, however, and the fault, generally lies not with the victims but with the perpetrators. However, outside of cases where the perps are mentally ill, they usually have motives, and understanding said motives is important in any analysis of the crime. For example, one of the simple motivations for crime (theft, robbery) is inequality. We don't blame rich people for being rich, but the crime perpetrators might do so, motivated by jealousy or such. In this example, theft does not appear out of thin air, people are not generally robbed randomly, specific victims are targeted because they are rich, they were in the wrong time and place, etc. In case of Jedawbne, my point is simply that this horrendous crime did not happen randomly, with the ethnic Poles suddenly gripped by irrational madness "out of thin air". This event is a culmination of many long-term factors, such as the lengthy history of antisemitism in Europe, which in turn can be explained (not justified!) by a number of factors (see history of antisemitism, lead of). Hence, the need for a detailed background section that makes it clear to the reader that the reasons for the massacre was not some "irrational madness out of the thin air". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It does seem as though you're blaming the Jews. You wrote:

I don't understand what makes you think that anyone here is trying to deny that antisemitism played a role in it. I'd have thought that by now you had done enough reading in this topic area to understand that antisemitism and like don't appear out of the thin air. It is only reasonable that a background section should explain why antisemitism lingered, grew in strength and eventually resulted in this calamity, and per numerous sources cited, such an explanation clearly involves issues related to the Żydokomuna stereotype.

There you're saying that the "Żydokomuna stereotype" (that Jews collaborated with the Soviets) may be one cause. But there were pogroms and antisemitism in Poland before the war. That suggests that the stereotype was an effect of antisemitism, not a cause. The fact is that Poland "othered" the Jews; this is why Kot's position mattered. He took the view that Polish Jews weren't really Polish. Hence the pogroms and all the rest.

It isn't appropriate to compare being wealthy with being Jewish. Try inserting "blacks" in your arguments and see what it leads to, or "women".

Looking at the articles, it's clear that there is a problem at these articles that the ArbCom didn't sort out. The question is what to do about it. Do you have any suggestions? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of "blaming the Jews". I don't, and to argue otherwise is poisoning the well/straw man/loaded question-type of fallacy, and as I said, it goes against WP:AGF/WP:NPA, particularly when I clearly clarified "blaming the Jews" was neither my intention, nor do I think it is correct. That you misunderstand what I wrote is unfortunate, and while I might have been a bit more clear it does not justify your accusations against me, for which I again expect a refactor and an apology.

For the record, "The fact is that Poland "othered" the Jews; this is why Kot's position mattered. He took the view that Polish Jews weren't really Polish. Hence the pogroms and all the rest." I actually agree with all of that. (I even agree that Kot's statements in 1940-1941 are inappropriate, my issue is that it is SYNTH for us to say so in wiki voice in an article). Likewise, I agree that " But there were pogroms and antisemitism in Poland before the war." and the history of Polish antisemitism was a factor too. And btw, Zydokomuna dates to before the war too. Also, I really don't see how you can read what I wrote to say that "the stereotype was an effect of antisemitism, not a cause". The stereotype was one of the causes of antisemitism. While there maybe some fringe feedback (a very tiny number of young Jews might have assumed that since Poland is antisemitic, the 'brave new world' of the Soviets is not - and note this is just a speculation, I'd need to revisit the sources to see if this is supported), it is a very minor element of the story, and likely not relevant to the Jedwabne, and it certainly not what I said, nor intended to.

My suggestion for sorting this is to WP:AGF. People who don't do so tend to end up causing problems for themselves and others, vide our former colleague Icewhiz, who clearly thought that his case is 'righteous enough' to engage in real life harassment. Let's avoid further radicalization among ourselves. I assume good faith about your edits, or those of FR, I know both of you want to make the articles better and more neutral. I'd appreciate if you'd return the sentiment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I wrote "the stereotype was an effect of antisemitism, not a cause". I wasn't claiming you had said it. I don't understand what's meant by this:

While there maybe some fringe feedback (a very tiny number of young Jews might have assumed that since Poland is antisemitic, the 'brave new world' of the Soviets is not - and note this is just a speculation, I'd need to revisit the sources to see if this is supported), it is a very minor element of the story, and likely not relevant to the Jedwabne, and it certainly not what I said, nor intended to.

SarahSV ^(talk) 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if my wording is unclear. If I was to say it simply, it would be "1) antisemitism is never justifiable, 2) scholars have analyzed the causes of it, 3) Zydokomuna is one of those, and 4) it is related to what happened in Jedawbne and should be discussed in the article's background section, as it is a topic addressed in reliable sources cited".

Also, let me repeat in what I hope is also clear enough: please refactor and apologize for posts above in which you accuse me of "blaming the Jews". If my English is unclear, I am sorry for that; I apologize if you or FR assumed my edits were "shifting blame from one side to the other" and let me clarify that this was certainly not my intention. Nonetheless this misunderstanding resulted in you clearly violating WP:NPA/AGF and attributing to me behavior I don't approve or and that I in fact find highly offensive ("blaming the Jews") and I would like you to remedy this through a refactor and apology. I have been very much hurt by what you said, precisely because I am so strongly opposed to racism in all its forms, including antisemitism in my own country. It's a complicated subject, and simply I don't want there to be any doubt in your mind that I think there is any room for blaming victims when discussing such matters. This is not the place for that content discussion (I came here asking to politely ask for a refactor and apology from FR, and now I am also asking for the same from you), so let's work together on it at the other articles I've mentioned. I'm sure you are as well-intentioned as I am and let's start again with that much in common. Again, I apologize if my wording was unclear, and I hope you can meet me half-way and apologize for the painful assumption about what I said. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, you wrote: "2) scholars have analyzed the causes of [antisemitism], 3) Zydokomuna is one of those". Viewing Zydokomuna as a cause of antisemitism puts the cart before the horse. Antisemitic themes thrive in societies that are already antisemitic. Libels don't cause antisemitism; rather, they seem to make sense only within antisemitic cultures, whether it's Jews the child killers or Jews the communist traitors. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a complex issue better discussed at Talk:Żydokomuna, where on talk you could try to explain how you may understand, for example, a source cited there, Jaff Schatz's quote "because antisemitism was one of the main forces that drew Jews to the Communist movement, Żydokomuna meant turning the effects of antisemitism into a cause of its further increase.". Here, however, I am still waiting for my refactors and apologies. PS. Re-reading our discussion above, I think I should clarify that of course Zydokomuna is primarily a consequence of anitsemitism (after all, antisemitism existed before the slur/canard/stereotype of zydokomuna arose). I think we all agree on this. But Schat's notes it is also a cause. In other words, it is not a one-direction process, it is a form of a loop, a vicious circle, where two negative prejudices feed into one another. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I've edited the second.[138] I'm not going to edit the first, as it's very precisely worded and difficult to misconstrue. François Robere (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

• • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
  • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind letting me know if you generally agree with the list at User:TonyBallioni/Initial Poland 500/30? Some I've already protected via the category, but would like your input as well before doing any large scale protections I didn't directly find myself. Also feel free to add any you think should be added. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've compiled my own list yesterday. I've a few additions - I'll insert there. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

On the Fox News image

To be clear, while the image may be used under a CC-NC-ND (non commercial , non-derivative) license, which appears free, WMF has required use to treat free images as defined at Free license via [139] (see m:Resolution:Licensing policy and the first section "Free Content License").

That means a free image must be reusable by all - including commercial users (meaning an NC image can't be free) and must be able to be modified (meaning a ND image can't be free). As such that graph exerpt is not a free image per our policies, and thus is non-free. And because that's a non-mainspace page, it cannot be used there. --Masem (t) 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. François Robere (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

My talk page

I'm in the process of trying to do some technical work and I'm being interrupted by getting notifications from you every few minutes. Stop that now, please. I've stated my position quite clearly and I don't expect to have to repeat myself. If you're dissatisfied with the reply I've given you, you have the option of taking your complaint to ANI, because you're wasting both our time by further arguing the toss at my talk. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I'm sorry to disturb you, but I don't take it lightly when someone makes such aggressive and unfounded accusations against me.[140][141] If you don't wish to discuss it and you won't strike it out, it's your prerogative, but I could no longer consider you an objective admin in this TA.

Cheers. François Robere (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, you managed to disturb me again. I reject your assertion that my comments were aggressive and unfounded. If I were to ask any uninvolved admin to step through the 60+ diffs from 20 June onwards, I guarantee you that they will be as disappointed as I am about the behaviour exhibited by the editors at History of Poland, yourself included. The article is under discretionary sanctions, and you should understand that those sanctions have been placed in the hands of uninvolved administrators precisely to deal with edit-warring and factional behaviour such as occurred there. My comments are a warning, and naturally you're free to call a warning an "accusation", but I promise you, I'll defend the warning I gave you and the reasons for it in any proper arena you choose to debate it in. You can consider me any way you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that I'm uninvolved and dispassionate in the topic area, and I will exercise my duty to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Prod

Hi, please read WP:PROD as an article that has previously been deleted at AFD cannot be prodded if it is recreated. Also it is not permitted to replace a prod that has been removed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Sorry, didn't realize it was already deleted. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting a typo

Thank you for correcting a typo here [142], however I am flabbergasted that you consider it a source misrepresentation, and would ask kindly to retract this bad faith accusation. Btw how did you find yourself to the article, I don't believe you edited it before? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: Perhaps it wasn't intentional, but it was a source misrep - and a pretty careless one, considering it was almost a verbatim copy of the original:

Original: his father looked the other way when anti-Jewish violence spilled on to the streets.

Article: his father would "look the other way" when faced with Jewish violence on the streets.

How did you find your way after two weeks of inactivity straight to a discussion I'm involved in, in an article you last edited almost a year ago? François Robere (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't intentional Are you saying you didn't intentionally go to editing an article I am editing? Come to think of it, you weren't involved in editing of University of Wroclaw either ever before[143]? My comments on LGBT article are not directed at you, I am not involved in any conversations with you, nor am I intending to edit the article at the moment, and I have edited the article less than a year before, which remains on my watch list.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it was a misrepresentation of the source, whether you intended it or not. If that's something you want to clarify, you should probably do it at Talk:Erwin Rommel, not here. As for the LGBT article - you're already there, so you might as well participate. Just popping in for a message doesn't count much for WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Care to answer how you found yourself to the articles you never edited before just right after I edited them?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You didn't edit Erwin Rommel now, you've edited it two weeks ago.

And yes, I do care. I don't think I owe you an account of which articles are 'on my radar' and why, especially given your habit of popping into threads that I participate in for no obvious reason. However, in the interest of WP:DGF I will say that I have reasons to follow those articles that are completely unrelated to you. François Robere (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth

I pinged you at your AN thread, but it wasn't a new line so you might not get it. No need to reply to me here, just letting you know in case you aren't watching AN. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK

François Robere, pls drop the WP:DROPTHESTICK. You keep forking this issue every time the discussion is coming to an end. The discussion was about the use of the word "never", and I agreed with you that that is not the best wording. Now the issue of the Polish Constitution came up. Again your approach is not neutral, because your wording ties the definition to just one issue, what about polygamy (it is legal in some countries), so just to say what the law defines as marriage in Poland is sufficient, and the reader can make their own value judgment based on this. --E-960 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@E-960:

1. I opened the discussion, so I know what it's about.[144]
2. You don't have to agree with me that it's "not the best wording" when it simply does not appear in the source[145] and is clearly wrong.[146]
3. your wording ties the definition to just one issue It's not "my" wording, it's yours - you explicitly added the statement at that time to resolve this disagreement.[147] You made the connection, not me. And BTW, I can't find any discussion of that article with respect to polygamy; if you have any, do share. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

interaction ban with GizzyCatBella

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

in defense of socks

Well done, as usual Francois. nableezy - 12:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Thank you sir, I try to do my best. Maybe if you diversified your interests beyond this sort of thing you'll see even less of me than you already do.

Have a fair weekend,

François Robere (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean my interests in not having this place be a hasbara piece? Nah. I think Ill keep working on that. nableezy - 12:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: That's not exactly how I would put it, but yeah. Have you considered something less contested, like sidesaddle or stratigraphy? François Robere (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

People using Wikipedia as a propaganda outlet have kept me too busy to have checked those articles, sorry. Be cool if they stopped though. nableezy - 13:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Yes, I'm sure you'd have more spare time if everyone just stopped with the propaganda. ;-) François Robere (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Please self-revert

Your latest edits have breached the 1RR rule on both Haavara Agreement and Rezső Kasztner. Please self-revert. RolandR (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware that there's 1RR involved (only for the first, I believe?), but nevertheless reverted both. Thanks for the notice. François Robere (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the need for an arbitration enforcement request. If the Kasztner article is not formally covered by the restriction, it certainly should be. RolandR (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Slow edit warring and tendentious editing

At the Hamas article, as explained there, your editing in respect of the addition of an image without consensus for that can be construed as tendentious and a slow edit war. Kindly self revert.Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As I explained on the relevant TP, a single revert after five days does not constitute an "edit war", "slow" or otherwise, though it's understandable why you'd like to label it as such - in line with your accusations from a few weeks ago that a small CE was actually "POV pushing".[148]

If you'd like to remove one of the images, you can do so subject to the consensus that's been established in the most recent discussion. François Robere (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Waiting for your self revert. Last chance.Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the threat, WP:AGF and all. It takes a special kind of character to move from "kindly" to "last chance" in the span of less than an hour.

I don't see how your interpretation settles with ARBPIA except for the most extreme cases, but for the sake of not arguing over it at AE I'll remove the image. Note that the consensus brewing at Talk is that the image should be kept, so it might be back in the article soon enough. François Robere (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no objection to a discussion that ends up adding the picture if that is the consensus. Note that I already added a link to the article that the picture covers; previously this particular attack was not even mentioned in the text.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Abortion in Poland is covered by sanctions under WP:ARBAB

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

In particular, anybody who gets into a revert war to add or remove language relating to abortion from an article would be covered by these sanctions. You would be on safe ground if you wait for agreement on the talk page before changing such language. If it turns out that you can't edit neutrally, there is the possibility of a topic ban from abortion. You recently opened a complaint at WP:AN3 about another editor where the issue in dispute was how to describe the abortion law in Poland. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I wasn't even aware of that decision.

I've no intention of moving ahead with any change at least until the AN3 case is resolved. It did seem like discussion and WP:BRD were moving productively with at least one of the editors (see more here). François Robere (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing approach

François Robere, in order to allow for a productive discussion to take place on the talk page, it might be a good choice if you just took yourself out from further editing — this based on your comments, such as this one "I don't know, nor care." As I mentioned before, someone reverts your edit (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing), and you throw a tantrum and start re-inserting the text or make even more changes across the entire article (instead of sticking to the discussion until a consensus is truly reached). Also, someone challenges your point with source(s), and you make dismissive and belittling remarks, such as the one above. I was taken aback by such a crude comment. I mean, if you are not interested in the article subject matter, why get involved in the discussion? Please be respectful of other editors and their efforts, as I'm trying to approach the discussion in a constructive manner. --E-960 (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

E-960, given your recent PAs[149][150] and admin warnings[151][152] (in a TA from which you were banned, in part, for PAs[153]), I would try to engage in some introspection, rather than dishing advice. Also, as a point of order, that discussion followed an RfC I started.[154] François Robere (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk about Chopin‘s sexuality

Hi François Robere,

Just to inform you: I put a request on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Just that the talk might come to a solution soon...--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. François Robere (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome! It‘s here:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

apologies

I made a request at REFUND, where I said you suggested I review the Paul Joseph Watson article. The deleted revisions were restored. I did look at them. I saw nothing obvious, so I was going to go to where you made this suggestion, and ask you why you suggested it.

I apologize.

The suggestion was made at Angeli's AFD, not BLPN, and you didn't make it.

If my comment mystified you, and you wondered whether I was playing games, or just overtired/going senile, it was the latter.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I noticed. It's okay. Have a safe week, and rest plenty! ;-) François Robere (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:APLRS clarification request

Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks you. We certainly have some questions for ARCA. François Robere (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you please help me with the English?

Could you help me? The text I added days ago was deleted because it was too similar to the one in The Times of Israel source, so I tried to rewrite it all over again:
Polish historian Tomasz Greniuch, who wrote a book called "The Way of the Nationalist" in which the Nazi collaborator Léon Degrelle is glorified, headed the IPN office in the city of Opole for three years. In 2021, when he was appointed head of the office of the Institute of National Memory, images of Greniuch giving the Nazi salute during the demonstrations of the fascist and anti-Semitic movement National Radical Camp were released, causing a scandal that led to to protests also by the Embassy of Israel. In 2018, Greniuch was awarded by the President Andrzej Duda with the Bronze Cross of Merit, a state award awarded for his study of "cursed soldiers", the Polish resistance fighters who opposed the Soviet Union during World War II and after the war. Following the scandal, Greniuch resigned from his role.--Mhorg (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: I'm not sure why it was removed, but I've made some changes to avoid it recurring: I've rewritten the paragraph, switched the Times of Israel to AP (from which the piece was probably syndicated), removed the bit attributed to Gazeta Wyborcza (which we should try to attribute directly rather than through AP, but for that we need to find the original piece); and replaced the qualifier "fascist and anti-Semitic" (which the source states was the movement's origin rather than current nature) with "ultranationalist" (which I can source). See below. François Robere (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Polish historian Tomasz Greniuch, author of the book The Way of the Nationalist, was appointed in 2021 as head of the Institute of National Memory office in the city of Wroclaw. Greniuch had previously headed the institute's office in Opole, and in was awarded the Bronze Cross of Merit by Polish President Andrzej Duda, for his work on the "cursed soldiers". When images of Greniuch giving the Nazi salute during the demonstrations of the ultranationalist far-right movement National Radical Camp were released a scandal broke, with the Israeli embassy in Warsaw rebuking Greniuch and several politicians calling for his dismissal. Greniuch eventually resigned from his post.

Thank you very much. I'm going to put this in the article.--Mhorg (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi François Robere, I'm trying to read this article about the links between Greniuch-Zaryn but unfortunately it is needed a subscription. Are you able to read this?[155]--Mhorg (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't. Paywalls make bad friends for Wikipedians. François Robere (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of subscribing to the newspaper, I would like to know more about this story. Do you think it could be useful? Or, since you seem to be an expert in the field, do you think there are better sources?--Mhorg (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You flatter me, sir. GW is as good a source as any for Polish news; if those interest you, perhaps the newspaper has a trial option for new subscribers? François Robere (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if there are already reliable and accessible sources dealing with the Zaryn-Greniuch issue, I would not subscribe. If this is one of the few sources to deal with the case, then I would subscribe.--Mhorg (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's probably one of the better ones. Do you know if they have a trial period? François Robere (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing there's some kind of special offer for this month. Basically, if I subscribe, I can also include 2 other people for free. If you are interested, send me your email. (however I did not understand what is different between the two offers ... at this point the second seems better, and with the second I can get two people to subscribe for free by providing their emails [156])--Mhorg (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Why, thank you! I'm already subscribed to a few newspapers, so my "current affairs quota" is full. :-) François Robere (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally, I did it... maybe there is some interesting information. I put them on the discussion pages.--Mhorg (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

AE

Please see - [157] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Jan Żaryn at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Hi, this is just an info that there has been a thread opened about Jan Żaryn at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm aware. François Robere (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Continuation of the same story: I have prepared a (rather long) text about behaviour of some editors on the article. I intend it to file to either BLP noticeboard or ANI, but first please review the text and suggest any possible changes to it (preferably by trimming the text's length). Thanks. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion

By obligation to notify users concerned in the ANI case, I hereby notify you that There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation your interaction ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You don't get ownership of an article because you once were active on it. You haven't edited Jan Grabowski in over a year and today you jumped in and edited the same exact section that GCB was editing with the very next edit. Because of that, I blocked you for 48 hours --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

But the other party does? I've edited this article 47 times in the last 3.5 years.[158] I've edited on this subject as recently as February.[159][160][161] The fact that the other party edited the article two weeks ago does not make my edit today a violation, and I'm frankly baffled that you decided to sanction me given the disinterest you've shown in clearer cases in the past.[162][163] What's more, the edit I supposedly touched introduced a blatant WP:BLP violation (Grabowski wasn't found "guilty" of anything - it was a civil lawsuit), so if I had modified it WP:BANEX would apply.

And one last note: you saw a guy follow me to your talk page for no reason other than to attack me and another editors.[164][165][166] The guy has a history of "hounding" and PAs. If that's not "hounding", I don't know what is. François Robere (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC) (Updated 05:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC))

@François Robere: It was GCB's edit and then your edit next in the same exact section. This was the clearest violation that I have been shown in the last few months. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You realize I've edited that section long before the other editor even touched it, right?[167][168] I also edited the main article before she has,[169][170] and in both cases she edited the same sections that I have.[171][172] This is not to say either is an I-ban vio, since you yourself said we can edit the same articles,[173] but if that's the standard...

To recap: this has been in the news continuously since at least February; I've been editing on it for more than year; I get pinged when it's mentioned, and it's been mentioned 26 times this year alone; and I didn't touch the other editor's changes (which she introduced two weeks ago to a section I already edited two years ago), though if I had then it probably would've been justified by WP:BANEX (see above).

And WP:HOUNDING. François Robere (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

As of March 2023:

The text no longer exists in the article. It was amended two weeks after this discussion took place, and was eventually removed.[174] Sources available at the time that would shown that WP:BANEX applies include:

• Ofer, Aderet (2021-02-09). "Historians lose libel suit in Polish court for book saying Polish man handed over Jews to Nazis". Haaretz. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• Charlish, Alan; Wlodarczak-Semczuk, Anna (2021-02-09). "Polish court orders historians to apologise over Holocaust book". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• Douglas, Lawrence (2021-04-07). "The Political Battle Over Poland's Holocaust History". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• Fife, Robert (2021-02-04). "Polish court to rule in libel case against Canadian historian of the Holocaust". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• Gera, Vanessa (2021-04-20). "Future of Holocaust research in Poland hinges on libel case". AP. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• Gera, Vanessa; Scislowska, Monika (2021-02-09). "Poland orders Holocaust scholars to apologize in case that could muzzle research". Times of Israel. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• Gessen, Masha (2021-03-26). "The Historians Under Attack for Exploring Poland's Role in the Holocaust". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• Henley, Jon (2021-02-09). "Fears for Polish Holocaust research as historians ordered to apologise". Guardian. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• Higgins, Andrew (2021-02-09). "Polish Court Orders Scholars to Apologize Over Holocaust Study". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• Sharon, Jeremy (2021-02-09). "Polish court: Holocaust scholars must apologize 'for inexact information'". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• Shotter, James (2021-02-09). "Polish Court Orders Two Scholars to Apologise over Holocaust Defamation". Financial Times. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
• "U of O Holocaust Scholar Ordered to Apologize in Polish Libel Case". CBC News. 2021-02-10.
• Wilczek, Maria (2021-02-11). "Holocaust historians must apologise for calling dead mayor a collaborator, Poland court rules". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2021-08-20.

François Robere (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

outing

Please reads wp:outing, it does not matter how obvious it is, if it has not been publicly declared here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I appreciate your concern for others, but it has been "declared" and there's nothing "outy" about it. The editor's real name appears in his signature and on his user page, his article was published under that name in national media, it was subsequently discussed here and elsewhere, and there's even a link to it at the top of Talk:Warsaw concentration camp. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, just a warning, I am unsure they have directly admitted it, but these things are all so rambling.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my reply to his piece, published in the same venue ([175]), etc.[176] Cheers. François Robere (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Background to UK referendum

The referendum did not happen because most Conservatives MPs wanted it on its own merits: most did not. The reason was that UKIP was taking 10 - 15% of their vote which, in the UK's FPTP electoral system, would mean that many would lose their safe seats. Cameron thought a referendum would be an easy win and would lock the issue away for a other 50 years. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Your edit ("Eurosceptics") was a definite improvement. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Give a date, don't give a date. 2016? 2020? Still dragging on?. I played with all of those and was not really satisfied. Maybe I'm too close to it. I'll be interested to see how others respond to your version, but at least we agree that Brexit is an extended process, not a moment it time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Award

FR, for this [177] flash of genius, I hereby award you the EEng Burma-shave Platinum Medal of Achievement, with Tiny Sapphire Chips and Diamond Sprinkles. Well done! EEng 03:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Apology

Hi François Robere. I want to offer my sincere apologies to you, here rather than somewhat in passing at RfAR. I failed you on more than one occasion, which has been a source of deep regret for me for some time now. El_C 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, El C. François Robere (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

SPS?

Hi François Robere, I know you are very experienced with academic sources. In your opinion, is the motivation used to remove this content acceptable?[178][179][180] Academic sources are not always accepted? Or is it a problem with the site they are uploaded to? Thank you for your possible help.--Mhorg (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Mhorg,

• [181] - the second and third sources are usable as usual. Regarding the first: while ResearchGate is essentially "self-published", the paper was given as a talk at a conference organized by several respectable organization, as you can verify independently, so it isn't "self-published"; to claim otherwise would require making an assumption about the author's academic honesty ("but how do we know that he uploaded the same text he gave in the conference?"), which is problematic in the least. As for the question of peer-review - this varies between conferences: some accept abstracts, some require the full paper.
• [182] - a similar case. Note that this is the second version of the talk, and the author names six scholars who who gave him feedback between the talks, which I would consider "peer review".
• [183] - sort-of-SPS, depending on whether the transcript is his or Reuters's. You can probably use this for some of it as well.

Personally I would probably accept the first two. Conference papers by an established subject matter expert [184] with 10-20 citations each [185][186] are definitely not SPS and should be more than okay by the usual Wiki standards. That said, these sort of papers are often part of the process of publishing a peer-reviewed work such as a book or a paper, and it would be preferable to use those if you can find them (as you did here, perhaps inadvertently: [187][188][189][190]).

Ping me if you have other questions. François Robere (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you François for this thorough explanation. I am not sure I understand everything. I'll try to go step by step:

1. The main problem is "ResearchGate", where any academic can upload what they want and there may have been malicious alteration of content. However, does the fact that this paper has been cited by at least 3 other academics (A Umland, DCS Albanese, L Kazyrytski)[191] makes it automatically valid and not SPS?
2. Ok, so this "cpsa-acsp.ca" (Canadian Political Science Association) works similarly to 'ResearchGate'? Again, dozens of citations appear on Google scholar.[192]
3. Ok, I will just replace that with Reuters's interview.

To sum up, it is not so much the site on which these papers are uploaded, but whether these papers have been cited by other academics? Or are there really sites for academic material that make it valid (and not SPS) even if it has no citations from other academics?

Thank you again for your enormous patience with me. Mhorg (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

1. That is indeed the problem (though not necessarily due to a malicious intent). Now that you've checked the citations themselves, I'd say that the fact that only three of these are independent probably makes this source problematic for controversial and/or sensitive claims.
2. I both agree and disagree with My very best wishes. I disagree regarding the CPSA submission: once they accepted it for a conference and uploaded the paper to their website, it is no longer the author's own publication; and while we don't know whether the particular conference reviewed just the abstract or the whole thing, the fact that it's the second version of the paper, and there's been scholarly input in between (see note at the bottom of the first page), gives it more credence in my view than some other sources. I agree, however, that we're better off with a version that's been published as part of a book or a journal, though I don't think the lack of such alone should disqualify it from being used here.

Its a combination of factors including the qualifications and reputation of the author, the nature of the published piece, the reputation and editorial process of the publisher, and the degree of acceptance by the scholarly community (the citation count being one measure thereof), all of which dictate what credence we should give the source (WP:RELIABILITY) and to what degree we should represent its opinion (WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE). François Robere (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, based on my experience, this is actually a "red flag" when someone has only a conference presentation but no publication of the same material/study in a peer reviewed journal. This can be something deemed unimportant by authors, something they started to study but could not complete, or something they tried to publish after the conference in a peer reviewed journal, but that was rejected. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry François, I cannot deal with this for at least some time at the moment. If I can still operate in the Eastern european topic I will write to you again.

For your information, I would only like to discuss just with you on your talk page, with this other user I would like to have as little contact as possible. Mhorg (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg: Email me if you want to discuss something "in person", otherwise I'm here if you need me. Keep safe! François Robere (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You are very kind, but I would still prefer to speak publicly, only without this user's constant meddling. He has already been warned by an administrator, but evidently he now feels confident enough to do as he pleases. Mhorg (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• (since that was about my edits). Something like that is of course self-published. As about conference abstracts or presentations in general, that depends. If it was filtered by organizers and selected as an oral presentation, that can be viewed as a review proccess. But if that was just a poster, than one can say there was no any actual review process. It is not uncommon that such materials remains never published in any RS. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC Chopin

Hi François Robere, perhaps you saw that Mathsci has been banned from Wikipedia. He’s been edit-warring not only in musical topics… In his farewell-statement, Mathsci identified his friends/network, like Smerus. This made me understand things much better, see things clearer: Mathsci and Smerus, together with Nihil novi, as you might remember, started dominating a RfC about Frédéric Chopin, filibustering without end and like that omitting sources and quotes they didn‘t like. More than once obviously acting as a group. [193] [194]. Now knowing about Mathsci’s friends and their conduct, shouldn’t there be a reassessment of the results of the RfC? Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the meaning of calling me Mathsci's 'friend', or in his 'network', exactly? I do not know him (or Nihil Novi), and was not associated with the topic which resulted in Mathsci's ban. I should be grateful to know of exactly what I am being accused here (apart from the apparently unpardonable sin of disagreeing with Chip-chip). I see that Chip-chip has launched a similar attack against me at User_talk:Ritchie333#Ongoing_trouble_with_Mathsci‘s_Friends_/_Network. Chip-chip is responsible for serial WP:NNPOV attempts to 'prove' that Chopin and some of his circle were homosexual, against the consensus of Chopin scholars and biographers. I and others consistently revert his attempts to burden WP articles with irrelevant gossip. The RfC on Chopin agreed with this approach. If Chip-chip has a grievance or complaint about me, let him be explicit and make it in an open forum, rather than on a user's talk page.--Smerus (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chip-chip-2020: The discussion was no doubt fueled by editors' personal views and lack of familiarity with the homosexual experience in context, as was some of the scholarly material on which we had to rely. I would've preferred if we had a clearer statement and less obfuscation on Chopin's sexuality, but don't have time to revisit it at the moment. If it's any consolation, I know for a fact that Chopin's sexuality is a subject of active research by some of the leading authorities on his life and work, and expect we'll see new publications about it soon enough. François Robere (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks François Robere for this information! I‘m very curious about these upcoming publications! At the latest then Robert McClenon, the moderator of this Chopin-DRN should revisit too.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed lint errors

I edited this talk page to remove lint errors, including missing end tag and obsolete HTML lint errors. This is specifically authorized in Wikipedia:Linter#How you can help. The edits left the display unchanged. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

And I thank you for your efforts, but I don't see a reason to edit 3 y/o TP comments, lint errors included. I would, however, continue the work on the "main" and "Wikipedia" namespaces. François Robere (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a goal of eliminating lint errors throughout Wikipedia, including talk pages. I came here because in section #Avoiding misgendering with Template:they, some of the templates there, such as {{they}}, had merge warning boxes that were generating div-span-flip or other high priority lint errors. When I edit a page to fix lint errors, I fix all that I can. I fixed everything except the errors generated by the template warning boxes, and others edited the templates and fixed the warning boxes, so this talk page is now lint-free. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You know not to make personal attacks

As you did at Political editing on Wikipedia. Keep it up and don’t be surprised if you get blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This particular editor has been hounding me for years. I've asked admins, arbs and even T&S for help. None of them did much (see #Apology above), and I was forced to leave a topic area I was heavily involved in for 3.5 years - and I wasn't the only one who did.[195] Now the guy appears out of the blue, deletes an article I just created, then follows me to another editor's TP that he never touched before, and leaves some "friendly" comments there.[196] I think you can see why one could lose their cool under these circumstances. François Robere (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I read the whole case. I don't see that it supports you. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Well, there's the correspondence between El C and myself (under the collapsed subsection "regrets" in his thread); the correspondence between El C and VM (under the collapsed subsection "WPO stuff", also in his thread); the replies by Ealdgyth, Robby.is.on and Ermenrich about other editors who've left the TA; and the various comments by Calidum, Szmenderowiecki, Robert McClenon and Pabsoluterince about the "toxic atmosphere" causing people to leave.

As an aside, the fact that an editor can complain about harassment and instead of sympathy gets a warning - which not unusual - really tells you something about the poor state of the community. François Robere (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The new version of the article has now been restored by the original reverter, and I expect it won't be contested as easily. François Robere (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Doug, it might also be worthwhile to find out how VM even got there in the first place. As François Robere mentions in a now-removed message on my talk page (permalink), VM never corresponded with Lovkal nor edited "COI editing on Wikipedia", which means he must've followed me to both. I have no idea about any of that, and atm I know next to nothing about... whatever this is — but that should probably be addressed (though, probably not here, at a venue in which VM can't respond). El_C 09:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C I've assumed it's about a recent article Robere created. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller, yes, you assumed correctly. For the record, the following is a timeline of that dispute as seen through the article's revision history (Oct 17-21):

1. On Oct 17, François Robere created Political editing on Wikipedia as a +1,425 bytes stub (diff).
2. A few hours later, Bishoen redirected it to Reliability of Wikipedia, citing POV fork (diff).
3. The next day, François Robere expanded the article with +22,075 bytes worth of content (diff).
4. That same day, VM undid that by redirecting, stating: weren't you JUST told that this was POVFORKing? (diff) — except, the article was now over 20 times the size of the original stub.
5. About 45 minutes later, François Robere reverted, stating: Stop harassing me, Marek (diff).
6. Three minutes later, VM reverted again, stating: Nobody's harassing you (unless you think Bishonen was also harassing you when they undid your POVFORK). If you want to try and create a FORK, raise the issue on talk somewhere first (diff).
7. Finally, three days later, Bishonen sees that the article has been expanded 20-fold since her original redirecting, she reverts VM and states: I originally redirected this article, as a new stub, to Reliability of Wikipedia, as a POV fork. This version seems to me to be a reasonable spinoff. Reverting redirect to enable discussion of the article's separate existence. Please don't redirect again before discussing on talk (diff).
8. I note on the talk page that at this point, to get an outcome like redirecting, one will need to have that decided at AfD, same as a decision to keep, delete, merge, etc. (diff).

The question that François Robere originally posed on my talk page, and which I then brought to your attention here, remains, however. And that is: how did VM even know about this page, that François Robere had created a day earlier, in the first place? El_C 11:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C How would I know? Watching BIsh's or Robere's contributions? Doug Weller talk 14:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Doug, that's what I'm getting at. Because François Robere and VM are perennial content opponents (years-long), if VM had reverted as a consequence of, as you put it, watching Robere's contributions — that would be WP:HOUNDING. El_C 14:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Political editing on Wikipedia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Political editing on Wikipedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political editing on Wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Wareon (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You may want to review changes made on the discussion page. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

cross-posting

Hello, with regard to this [197], I might have made a mistake, but I don't know where.

Were you referring to this discussion at NPOVN? In fact, the two discussions concern the same article, but have different topics: the removal of the section on sexual violence by Ukrainian forces (NPOVN) and the inclusion of references to mass rape and rape as a weapon of war in the lead (ORN). Since the topics are different, I thought a unified discussion on the same noticeboard was not desirable.

Or were you referring to this discussion at RSN? In this case the topics were identical, but I was convinced by MVBW's argument that the right forum for discussing it was not RSN, so I closed that discussion and linked it in the new discussion I opened at ORN.

As I said, I may have made a mistake (opening two threads for the same article; opening a thread at RSN and then withdrawing from it) but I don't understand what I should have done differently.

Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: Understood. What I'd do in this case is either wait with one problem while you're resolving the other (voiding the need to cross-post), or start a unified discussion on the respective TP ("Unresolved issues (XX December 2022)") and post short notices on both noticeboards. In either case it would be good practice to leave a notice on the TP about the posts you made to the noticeboards. François Robere (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations

You are mentioned extensively in the recently published academic paper Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust [198], for all the right reasons of course. Thank you for the good work. Happy reading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! François Robere (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A comment

These guys are not my colleagues, I do not know them, and I never edited their BLP pages. But they put themselves in an extremely precarious position. The privacy issue alone is a huge problem. Consider a medical researcher who does a study with patients. Mentioning them anonymously in a paper is fine. But consider him writing their real names and mentioning: "and BTW, their stolen email correspondence is here". That guy would be out of his job tomorrow, and it does not matter if Arbcom decides he was right and bans the patients. Yes, I know that privacy in medical research is covered by special regulations, and of course these "human subjects" are different . But still... Of course I may be wrong because I have never been a member of ethics committees who debate such cases, and I do not want to be. Actually, I am amazed how reviewers of their paper missed it, so this is now may be also a responsibility of the editorial board/journal. But I am not surprised by the poor quality of review, I have seen worse. They could easily fix it in the paper by removing a couple of phrases and links. But they did not, which together with other highly personal and charged accusations, suddenly transforms a potentially legitimate scientific publication into an attack page. In other words, there is a big difference between studying "human subjects" in their social environment, such as WP (that is what they suppose to do) and going after these subjects by outing them and submitting a complaint about them to WMF. That is what I would say if I were a reviewer of their paper. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey My very best wishes,

"Colleagues" refers to editors such as myself, who've been subject to these PAs by editors other than yourself.

You're comparing apples to linguine. Medical secrecy has to do with facts that are strictly your domain, insofar as they don't endanger others (eg. via communicable disease). Here we are dealing with public statements and behavior, done under a pseudonym, to the detriment of others. Putting aside the fact that said editor used to edit under their own name, and even put it on ArbCom's records, it still falls under a completely different set of ethics. Whether it was justified or not under those ethics is a different question.

Considering you know next to nothing about how the essay was reviewed, you sure are disagreeing with a lot... François Robere (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did not read whole paper (this is such a crap), but what I read was enough. If I were a reviewer, my conclusion would be at least a "major revision" for these reasons, in addition to the privacy violations and inappropriate focus (i.e. going after certain people); a scientific publication must at least appear to be neutral. My very best wishes (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, that would be "reject" because using old WP versions completely undermines the validity of conclusions. My very best wishes (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: "neutrality" implies accuracy and comprehensiveness, not "presenting a false balance".

Using historical documents is one of the main ways of exploring past events and forming hypotheses about various phenomena, both past and present. Depending on the argument, the fact that some of these documents no longer represent reality, does not immediately invalidate the conclusions that have been drawn from their examination. François Robere (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, noted. I already said everything I wanted about this article and this case and will try to stay away of this mess started by Arbcom. I do agree with SilkTork. I also think this comment [199], however outrageous, reflects the prevailing opinion by arbitrators. Therefore, the result of this case is predetermined: all the alleged "culprits" will be banned per this comment, i.e. just to minimize the disruption created by Icewhiz and his supporters, no matter how hard these "culprits" worked to improve content. Given that, taking any part in this mess would be is just a waste of time, at least for myself. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@MVBW, I'm curious about your view about this paper having academic misconduct. So here's a list of people involved with this paper:

• The two history professors (from two different universities in two countries) who authored it
• One or more libel lawyers (I don't know how many, guessing at least two, one for each author/university) who reviewed it before submission
• Multiple peer reviewers
• The editors of the journal, who not only accepted the paper for publication, but have been actively promoting it as a "must read" (it is now the most-read paper in the journal BTW)
• The PR department of the two universities, both of whom promoted this paper
• At least two journalists (from Ynet and Haaretz)
• The editors of at least four major news outlets (Ynet, Haaretz, the Forward, Wyborcsza) who published stories about it

...none of these people apparently saw any academic misconduct, or felt this paper was a "rant" (as some have described it), or otherwise saw anything improper about it. And here's the thing: if there was academic misconduct, or if (as some have said) it was ghostwritten or co-authored by someone else, if the paper has outing or doxing (as some have said), that would, as you say, likely result in serious consequences for the authors, maybe the end of their academic careers.

So my questions: did all of these professionals -- like over a dozen professionals -- miss the academic misconduct? Or is it that it's not academic misconduct at all? Why would the authors jeopardize their careers to publish this? Or is it that their careers are not at all jeopardized by publishing this? How sure do you think they were that they were "safe" before they submitted it for publication? How sure are they after it was published?

It seems downright silly to me that a paper that meets this much professional scrutiny is dismissed or disparaged by amateurs on the internet. The theory that there is any misconduct by the authors seems just silly to me. Levivich (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You know a lot more than me. I saw only the article itself and checked some of the links provided in the article, including interviews with WP participants. Like I said, if I were a reviewer of such paper, my conclusion would be "reject" for the reasons explained above and in the arbitration request. However, it was published, apparently due to the poor quality of peer review in this journal. The poor quality of peer review in scientific journals is very common. Given the publication and the improper disclosure of personal information, manipulation with data and false accusations in the article (as explained here), along with further actions by these authors (such as their complain to WMF), yes, I do believe this entire story is a potential scientific misconduct. Yes, I can be wrong (only an authorized ethics committee can determine if something was or was not such misconduct [200]). Why would the authors jeopardize their careers to publish this? This is good question. Why all people who committed scientific misconduct did what they did? A lot of different reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You say that libel lawyers reviewed it? This is highly unusual. In fact, I never heard about anyone doing this. This is not USSR. Can you give me any reference or link about it? Speaking about an editor of the journal who made decision, they always think about increasing the readership and citation of the journal. As soon as they see something "hot" (in a good sense), they want to publish it. And it depends on the editor who will be the reviewers; he or she knows which reviewers would typically support or criticize the paper. This is a well known "kitchen". Now, speaking about the scientific misconduct in general, this is a responsibility of the researcher. No one else can help here, not lawyers (libel is a completely different issue), not the editor, and not reviewers of the paper (they can only occasionally catch something, as I would). My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich:? In addition to lawyers, what did you mean by saying :"How sure do you think they were that they were "safe" before they submitted it for publication?" Did they receive some kind of threats? 02:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"Safe" from accusations of academic misconduct or libel lawsuits. Levivich (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

But this is the case when he is going after other people, not the other way around [201]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Right. A professor, in the middle of a high-profile libel lawsuit over accusations he makes in a book, writes a paper where he accuses other (named) professors of contributing to holocaust distortion. He'd have to be a complete idiot not to have considered the possibility of libel and taken whatever precautions his lawyers advised him to take. (Same for the journal and the universities.) Levivich (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Doing a research on this subject and publishing a scientific paper would be fine, but that is not what they did [202]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! If they had any sense in them, they would've used a speculum!

Levivich, spare yourself the trouble of arguing with one who hasn't read the book, yet holds an opinion of the author. François Robere (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This entire article is one big complaint. An unsuspected reader would think that the coverage of these subjects in WP is extremely bad. Yes, it is far from perfect, sure, but the coverage of subjects related to Poland is significantly better than the coverage of subjects related to Russia/USSR (and the people who contributed positively to Russian subjects were not saints, one of them a former administrator who created many pages, but also many sockpuppets). No one complains simply because none of serious historians cares what is happening in WP in terms of content and especially behavior (i.e. who said "f... you" and why - that is what G&K do, I laughed reading them). Typical historians are reading books, not WP. Only these two historians all the sudden decided to interfere, by writing something in the style of "The Squabble", and with a lot of effort dedicated to "who said what". This is extremely unusual. Why they did it? I can see only one plausible explanation, and that is the involvement of Icewhiz who conducted an off-wiki campaign against said contributors.My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll be sure to relay your thoughts to Piotrus, whose entire body of work over the last 16 years (give or take a paper) is about Wikipedia, its uses, and its society. François Robere (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus? No, I only read something he posted on-wiki. That was boring. Someone would say he is manipulative. But I would say he has leadership skills. VM? I like straight shooters like him, but that can make him topic banned. Both Piotrus and VM are extremely dedicated to the project and did a lot of great work. GizzyCatBella? Yes, she is opinionated in certain aspects, but who does not? That is what make us humans. G&K? This is an angry mastodon who promotes his cause. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, some would. Why do you say he has "leadership skills"? Who is he leading? François Robere (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean something that had happen more than 12 years ago and therefore hardly relevant now. Since then I disconnected my WP email and had no any contacts whatsoever, even did not look at any stuff that is freely available on the internet because I have better things to do in my life. Hence, I have no idea what he or anyone else does beyond looking at their edits on wiki, just as with any other contributors. Speaking on email issues though, I should say this is all wrong: we should promote communications in the project, not forbid them. In the most general sense, all communications are good, and the privacy of communications is also very important. In my opinion, someone who steals emails by other people on purpose is a hard core criminal, whereas someone Icewhiz is just a nice guy who could be a good KVN captain, although, yes, he is very much manipulative probably a worst sockpuppeteer in WP history. I am saying this old story (and other old cases) are completely unrelated to Icewhiz, Holocaust etc.; there were some bad actors (not Piotrus or anyone currently active in WP); I am sure they had connection to Russia (there were a couple of similar or worse cases on ruwiki, but this is all moot by now). Of course I should not be editing in WP after that, but I just ended up with not editing certain pages (which I edited in the past), such as Federal Security Service. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

So, while I did check the article by G&K and posted what I think about it, I am pretty much a bystander to the case, and I am going to stay away, no matter what arbitrators will decide about the parties. Perhaps I will even stop editing here at all, at least for a while. My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that libel lawyers vetted the paper before publication? That would be a very unusual situation. Usually universities don't even know about papers until they are published. Zero^talk 01:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No, but considering he just won a big libel lawsuit over his last book, I'm pretty sure he's got lawyers doing libel reviews. Levivich (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

New section for article "Thirty-seventh government of Israel"

Hi @François Robere, in terms of etiquette, we should, presumably, now stop discussing this subject at The new section "Ancillary changes" doesn't belong in this article.

Do we need to put something on the Talk page of Thirty-seventh government of Israel about the additions we intend to make?

Do you have a plan for how to proceed with the additions? Misha Wolf (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Misha Wolf: Done.

I started the section with a short summary of the criticisms against the "reform", then moved the content from the "ancillary changes" section. Later I'll work on the more subtle criticisms, and on better integration with the rest of the article. What do you think about it so far? François Robere (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @François Robere, thanks, it looks great! I think I'll take a back seat for now, as you seem to be much better than me at writing prose. For now, I'll confine myself to minor tweaks. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You're most kind. François Robere (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @François Robere, please let me know when you've done as much to this new section as you plan to do, and then I may add some more items. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I will. François Robere (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Misha Wolf: I've put in the section as much as I can ATM. It's not by any means finished, but take a look. François Robere (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Assaf Sagiv

Hi @François Robere, I don't want to distract you from your work on the Controversies section of article Thirty-seventh government of Israel, but I've just finished reading an interview in Haaretz with a man called Assaf Sagiv, which strikes me as very important. Do you have access to Haaretz? There is no Wikipedia article about Assaf Sagiv but I feel that there really ought to be one. The only mention of him that I can find is in the article about Azure (magazine), of which he was editor-in-chief for 5 years. I would be very interested in your thoughts about the interview and about the creation of a Wikipedia article about Sagiv. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I started a stub with some content from he.Wiki. He's obviously written a lot, but not much has been written about him that I could find. François Robere (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Assaf Sagiv moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Assaf Sagiv, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Evidence

FYC: Special:Diff/1146771313 Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I was actually planning on doing, for starters, just that. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

To avoid duplicating our efforts, note this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Note on evidence submissions

Hi there. I believe you have exceeded the extension granted to you based on number of diffs. Personally (and truthfully the other drafters might feel different and if they did I wouldn't argue otherwise) I was willing to let this slide. However, that becomes less true if you start duplicating evidence you have already submitted as you did around the events on Guerillero user talk page which I had already summarised. If you have duplicated other evidence (whether summarised or unsummarised) please consolidate or remove them as appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep49, I assumed I had your approval to continue posting, while summation is taking place.[203] If I was mistaken - my apologies. With regards to Guerillero's TP - I repeated that example to highlight the involvement of other editors in the case, whereas the first mention focused on VM's behavior alone. I'll try to consolidate as much as possible. François Robere (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Question: I just trimmed this, since it was marked "out of scope" in the previous section (focusing on VM's behavior, in this case alleged "gaming"). Should I have trimmed it, or do you consider it due for that section? François Robere (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If something has been handled by an arb, one way or another, it should not be removed. So that's going to get put back in when I finish handling this current batch of diffs from that section. More generally I understand that it was unclear what kind of permission you had been given which is why I hadn't said anything until now. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks. I just want to note that my general approach has been to group examples thematically, and since some examples overlap themes, I made a note of it at the intro to one of the sections.[204] That said, I will try to make sure that I don't repeat claims or diffs between sections. François Robere (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If you find that something should be summarised in more than once place thematically and it isn't I think it's fair for you ask for that on the Evidence Talk and the arbs/clerks can evaluate to see if they agree or not. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

GCB AfDs

Missed one! Both GCB and Piotrus !vote keep here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Assaf Sagiv

Hello, François Robere. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Assaf Sagiv, 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) 15:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Assaf Sagiv needs references from reliable sources about Assaf Sagiv

I noticed that the article about Assaf Sagiv was moved to draftspace. Can you add references from reliable source about him and then submit the article for evaluation so that it could be moved back to mainspace? As well, if you find reliable references about him, please add them to the corresponding article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles about Chinese topics at AfD

When you see an article about a Chinese topic that you feel does not demonstrate the topic's notability, please check the corresponding article in the Chinese Wikipedia before you start the AFD process. (That applies to other country-specific or language-specific topics as well.) Often another language's Wikipedia will have a better article on a given topic than the English Wikipedia, and you can expand the English article by adding text and references from the other language's article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

SUNY Downstate picture: "needs update"

In 2022, you added the "needs update" tag for the hierarchy-of-evidence pyramid at the pages Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Hierarchy of evidence. Could you clarify why the pyramid needs an update? Thatsme314 (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Thatsme314 (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Cf. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#SUNY Downstate picture: "needs update" Thatsme314 (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll reply in the thread. François Robere (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

References

1rr

pretty sure thats more than 1 revert at 2023 Israel-Hamas War, just this and this violate the restriction, and thats not going in to analyzing the other edits to see if they were reverts as well. nableezy - 15:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh you self-reverted the latter. Think there is another revert in there but no worries I guess. nableezy - 15:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Yeah, I did. After the first edit I started looking at the second, and in the few minutes when I was looking at sources someone had already made another edit.

I don't think my other edits fall under the definition of "reverts" (they're both net expansions[205][206]), but for the avoidance of doubt I'll restore the two bits I changed that weren't my own additions.[207] François Robere (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

hard with these articles to have a 1rr tbh, almost impossible to make consecutive edits in general. nableezy - 16:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Yeah. Thanks for the notice, though. François Robere (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editwarring at page under Israel-Paelstine arb sanctions. Thank you. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

quote fabrication

Hello François Robere, in the interests of not escalating things to AE before asking for an explanation, can you please explain this edit, in which you write According to another New York Times report, "Hamas has used civilians as human shields and positioned underground bunkers, weapon depots and rocket launchers under or near schools, mosques and hospitals". citing Cooper, Helene; Schmitt, Eric; Goldman, Adam (9 November 2023). "Israeli Forces Have Limited Time in Gaza, U.S. Officials Say". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 9 November 2023.. The cited article however says Hamas has long been accused of using civilians as human shields and positioning underground bunkers, weapon depots and rocket launchers under or near schools, mosques and hospitals. You removed the long been accused, changed using to used, to claim that the NYT supports as fact what they report as accusation, and you did it within quotation marks. Can you please explain to me how this happened? nableezy - 13:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: WP:AGF, etc. I was quoting verbatim from the latest archive snapshot of the article,[208] which I assumed was up-to-date. Turns out it missed a revision. François Robere (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Me assuming good faith was why I came here, thanks for the archive link to validate that assumption. Sorry for the mixup, but I hope you understand my reaction here as well. But also, in the future if using the archive then include an archive-url in the citation, as I would have looked there to make sure the quote was not in there before before coming here. nableezy - 14:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of demonstrating it better, I suggest avoiding words like "fabrication" and "escalation" next time. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)