User talk:SlimVirgin: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:02, 17 May 2020

Template:NoBracketBot

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

#1Lib1Ref
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments?

Since you expressed appreciation for [2], you may wish to participate in the ensuing discussion.

Or not. DS (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've left a comment. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hi Sarah, sorry to drag you I to this but I’ve mentioned you on AN/I about a decision that ST47 reverses because he said you erred. He doesn’t appear to have advised you or any other admin. To be far, I do t have a concern with the action, but have concerns about the way he went about it, which seems very vindictive. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break. I'm having a panic attack right now, but I'll be OK. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, take time away and relax. Just forget about this place for a bit. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you attached your reply to the wrong person. I don't want to move your reply myself, but I figured I'd let you know. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, I put it there because I didn't want to shove yours out of the way (we had an edit conflict). I'll leave it there for now. But thanks for pointing it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have email

Or, if your email address hasn't changed you have. DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Sarah, I was trying to create a new talk page archive and mistakenly created Victoriaearle/Archive 19 in main space. Can you or one of your talk page stalkers delete it for me. I've put a prod tag on it but probably not done it correctly. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria, that's done. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Victoria (tk) 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes

Money emoji

Athaenara • DeltaQuad

Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Watten again

The protection has expired at Barrett Watten and we had an addition describing the sanctions. I suggest putting the protection back and revdel the addition. Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's done. Thanks for reverting and letting me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wondered how long it would take for something to happen after the protection expired. Now we know. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add the extended-confirmed protection indefinitely, but a message appeared saying the time was invalid, so I reduced it to six months. I then noticed from my contributions that the first protection seemed to work, so I don't know what happened. I'll ask later at the village pump or somewhere. Ideally there should be no gaps in protection at that page. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I have created a link for my email address. I have a cornucopia of off-wiki evidence.GDX420 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photography of the Holocaust

I stubbed this as main for Category:Holocaust photographs, where I think you worked on many if not most of the articles contained there. I think this is something we could try to expand, if you'd be interested? I think the topic is very much notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SV, I am really distressed about how we seem to be getting off on the wrong foot at the PJ article. May I ask again whether you'd be interested in reviewing/expanding the article I linked in the heading above? Also, your input would be welcome in the source review at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom (where there is also a recent suggestion to rename the article). Last but not least, how are we doing with the restructuring of The Holocaust article we discussed late last year? In the end, PJ is a super niche topic, I think we should take a nice cup of WP:TEA, and rather than stress over a topic that is effectively a footnote to a footnote, we can do a much better job for our readers by improving some higher profile articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotrus, please read this 2018 post from Valereee again. That's the problem. It isn't PJ alone.

I want to take what Jan Grabowski wrote seriously and look for solutions that will apply across the board to these articles, not only to Holocaust articles. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is. Grabowski is a reliable historian which is why I copied his reviews to various article's talk page, but he is an amateur re Wikipedia, and clearly doesn't understand how the project works. Which is what I said in my polemic published by the same newspaper ([3]). I totally agree we need broad ranges solutions, which is why in said polemic I wrote that the simple solutions is for experts like Grabowski to join us here as fellow volunteers. Unfortunately, few weeks have passed, and I still don't see any professional historian familiar with Polish-Jewish history or such doing so. It's easy to criticize, it's much harder to actually do something constructive like do a literature review and (re)write an article. There is a lesson in this as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Coleman

Hi there it's been a while. I just noticed the article above. Haven't checked out thoroughly but looks self-written and promotional, the subject appears to be anti-vax, and has recently published videos on YouTube claiming that cvirus is harmless. See eg. this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ8sQQvqvrE . I went to Wikipedia to check him out, but there is nothing in the article itself suggesting any warning signs. Your thoughts welcome. Peter Damian (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, good to hear from you. The only thing I remember about that person is he was a doctor, a syndicated columnist, and author of How to Stop Your Doctor Killing You. :) SarahSV ^(talk) 21:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha it's just been stubbed [4] - "hopeless mess full of self-published references per WP:TNT. Notability". In other news, it's getting pretty scary here in London. Keep well. Peter Damian (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP has restored the article so WP:Articles for deletion/Vernon Coleman (2nd nomination). He may even be notable (I'm not convinced) but WP:TNT certainly applies. E Eng 14:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help on an article

Hi SlimVirgin! I'm looking for help and advice on an article I've recently expanded, GirlsDoPorn, about a long-term case of widespread sexual abuse in the porn industry. I'm reaching out to you because I saw you've worked on some topics with serious and disturbing themes, like Female genital mutilation, Mass sexual assault in Egypt and Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Certainly GirlsDoPorn is one of the most disturbing true stories I've encountered.

I'm looking for help with any aspect of the article, which I'm planning to maybe nominate at DYK and GA soon. But in particular, I'm less confident with some of the legal aspects of the article. I don't know if you have any legal knowledge but I'd certainly appreciate another opinion regardless. I've used a lot of language like "alleged" or "reported" or "according to X" wherever a potentially legally damaging claim is made, to make sure I'm complying with WP:BLP. However, I'd like to be using the minimal amount of qualifiers that is appropriate, because I think such qualifiers can undermine the realities of what the women involved experienced. Given that the lawsuit resulted in the plaintiffs being awarded damages, what if anything can we state as fact? Or is there a more elegant way to attribute information to its source than repeated usage of "alleged" etc.?

If you're not interested in working on the article, thanks for reading this anyway! Best wishes. — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilorv, I took a look, but that's an article I really have no interest in working on. I'm sorry that I can't help. As for attributing information to sources, make sure the source is a high-quality reliable source for anything sensitive, then simply say "According to the New York Times", and quote them if necessary. But if you feel it might cause you a legal issue, don't publish it. If it's something you feel is important, open a discussion at WP:RS or WP:BLPN if it involves living people. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. Thanks for the reply! — Bilorv (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Death march from Dachau.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Death march from Dachau.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Captain Raju. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Death march from Dachau.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Death march from Dachau.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. b uidhe 22:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT Consensus on an improved version of the lead for COVID-19

Hey SlimVirgin,

please vote here to reach a quick consensus and remove the misleading sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Another_thought

It it much more precise now. We can improve further if you have comments but at least let's make a first step in the right direction!

Thanks,

--Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Compromise_of_all_positions for another attempt at broader compromise --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best compromise to COVID-19 lead

Hi there. I note your interest in the COVID-19 lead and the issues surrounding the current edit. Please let’s clear this thing up once and for all, and reach a quick consensus if possible. I’ve included below a link for you to vote on a best compromise. Current edit as it stands is quite misleading and more damaging the longer it is up given that people will read it and freely socialise thinking that as long as nobody coughs at them then they’re all good.

This is a compromise between leaving out the ‘primarily’ which therefore mentions coughing as though it’s the only way droplets are formed (per current misleading edit), and the other side which is actually mentioning exhaling and sneezing. This way, the primary method is stated, no secondary methods stated, and the reader knows that other forms of droplet production are possible.

Please vote using the link below, thanks in advance. Magna19 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#Compromise_of_all_positions

I agree we could edit it further but we need to reach consensus and finally CLOSE this RFC. We can then use more appropriate methods of editing single phrases. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#/*_How_to_write_an_RFC_*/_new_section where you are also mentioned. I hope you agree the proposed compromise vastly improved the currently misleading one. With three supports plus Doc James's we can probably start seeing some consensus forming. One step at the time and we will get there. Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks to your and others voting against some other proposals we are approaching consensus for option 3b (currently 6 to 1 in favor). It is exactly what you requested in another comment. Please show support? quicklink. Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes

Cabayi • Lee Vilenski

Boing! said Zebedee

Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT

Money emoji → Moneytrees

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes

NativeForeigner

Oversight changes

Someguy1221

Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference cleanup?

Soooo, look at what I just stumbled upon: Cossack riots. 2018 mew article, eh? Reference cleanup? This has zero inline citations. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, thanks for the invitation, but I think I'll give that one a miss. :) SarahSV ^(talk) 05:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query where to find policy text

Sarah, for this case, either it's my imagination, or I can't find policy text I need, or the text I seek has gone missing. Where do I find policy text about developing consensus for the use of reliable sources re NPOV and WEIGHT? I don't find it on the NPOV page. That is, we don't automatically preference one source over another; we work towards determining WEIGHT and NPOV via the usual consensus process-- as opposed to eliminating certain sources or preferencing others. I need to address the idea that ONE source can be used to the exclusion of others as a misinterpretation of MEDRS. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, the closest is probably WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." To establish weight, multiple sources have to be considered. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing mostly just to edit

This guy or gal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.128.192.31

I haven't checked them all, but some are suspicious. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited in February. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy

I ran out of time to evidence the POV by choices of sources, but I mentioned you in my evidence at:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

New partnership
Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: comment on antisemitism

Hey Sarah,

Wiki rarely loans itself to deep discussion, but that's a really well-articulated observation: "Antisemitic themes thrive in societies that are already antisemitic. Libels don't cause antisemitism; rather, they seem to make sense only within antisemitic cultures" (emphasis mine).[5] Thanks for that, and for your overall involvement. François Robere (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi François, thank you very much for saying that. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Serbs

Dear Sarah, I hope you're doing well these days. I've noticed your extraordinary contributions to the Holocaust articles. There is some kind of edit war in the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article. There is also an ongoing debate about the lead and Background section, the chronological order of events, broader context etc. Unfortunately, we have created a slightly tense atmosphere so far. If you have time, I would like you to look at the situation and try to give your opinion, as a neutral side with extensive experience. I would be honored if you would take a part in our discussion and improve the quality of the article. I'm sure you can help a lot. All the best.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WEBDuB, thank you very much for the kind words. I'll take a look at the talk page, but I have to say it's unlikely I'll be able to contribute. I have a list of things that I want to work on, which involve reading sources, so it's a question of maintaining a train of thought. But I do promise to take a look in case I can add an opinion. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Francisco Duran

Arlington (Virginia) Public Schools' School Board last night announced the appointment of Dr. Francisco Duran to be Superintendent of Schools from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2023. This appointment affects all 250,000 people in Arlington and many outside the county. Our local newspapers convey the story: https://www.arlnow.com/2020/05/07/nationwide-search-finds-new-aps-superintendent-in-fairfax-county/ https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/arlington-turns-to-fairfax-for-new-superintendent-of-schools/article_571d25d6-911c-11ea-b161-27d370a587b0.html and soon, The Washington Post. To create an article about Dr. Duran, I copied his biography from the official Fairfax Schools web page https://www.fcps.edu/staff/francisco-duran

I think his selection merits inclusion in Wikipedia as a person who will hold great influence over a large population. Jay.wind (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up...

You may want to pay attention to this, we're getting the old trope of "no women editors so no women's issues are written about" ... which always strikes me as trying to shove women editors off into only a few "legitimate" subjects for them to edit. --Ealdgyth (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using intimidation to gain an upper hand in a content dispute

I would appreciate it if you did not try to intimidate me with false accusations or peculiar interpretations of scope of a topic ban. As the article clearly states: "The idea originated as anticommunist propaganda at the time of the Polish–Soviet War (1919–1920) and continued through the interwar period. The term itself appeared in the post-World War period." And indeed my edit concerned events of 1968.

Rather than trying to be confrontational on the talk page or leaving intimidating messages on my talk, you could instead address the issue at hand; please stop engaging in original research on talk as an excuse to remove a source per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and if you really think that an academic book is "too old" because it's from 1991, ask for outside input at WP:RSN. That is how you're suppose resolve such a disagreement and you've been around long enough to know that. Volunteer Marek 06:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah's comment was on-point, and you should probably take a break before this escalates. François Robere (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C, Guerillero, and Galobtter: I'm pinging you as the three uninvolved admins who closed the latest AE related to Poland and World War II. Volunteer Marek was topic-banned during WP:APL from "the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland". He is editing Żydokomuna, which is about the antisemitic canard/conspiracy theory of Jewish Bolshevism in Poland. His edits to the article; and to the talk page. He says this is not covered by his topic ban. My comments to him: [6][7] His response is above.

Would you be willing to make a determination about this without a trip to AE? I'm not asking for a sanction, just a decision about whether the article falls within the topic ban.

Żydokomuna/Jewish Bolshevism is the idea that communism was specifically Jewish or that Jews were particularly invested in communism. It's one of the founding myths of the Holocaust and World War II. Hitler stated in 1939 that another world war would mean "not the Bolshevization of earth, and thus a Jewish victory, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". According to the historian Paul Hanebrink (A Specter Haunting Europe, Harvard University Press, p. 4:

Over the course of the twentieth century, the belief that Communism was created by a Jewish conspiracy and that Jews were therefore to blame for the crimes committed by Communist regimes became a core element of counterrevolutionary, antidemocratic, and racist ideologies in many different countries. ... During the decades between the two world wars, the idea of Judeo-Bolshevism inspired a variety of countries to enact policies that discriminated against Jews or placed them under surveillance. When Nazi Germany went to war with the Soviet Union in 1941, its leaders told themselves (and the men they commanded) that the Judeo-Bolshevik threat required them to wage war on the Eastern Front with relentless and barbarous cruelty. They also made the idea of Judeo-Bolshevism a crucial element in the origins of the Holocaust. Today, nationalist extremists and far-right movements across Europe embrace this history and make its memory central to their own political identity.

It seems self-evident to me that this falls within "the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland", even without "broadly construed". SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I would appreciate it that if you are going to talk about me, you'd ping me.

As I already pointed out the article SPECIFICALLY says that the term originated in the POST WAR period. Its usage has been exclusively confined to the post war period and is mostly related to the anti-semitic campaign of 1968. 1968 or 23 years AFTER the war. Of course there are similar concepts out there, there is some background (which is where anything related to WW2 in the article appears and which I made no edits to) and at the end of the day you can ALWAYS try to play the "six degrees of separation" game to try and connect anything to WW2 in Poland. You keep bringing up the article on "Jewish Bolshevism" - but I did NOT edit the article on Jewish Bolshevism. Maybe if I did you'd have a case. But the very fact you keep brining up SOME OTHER article, that I did NOT edit, kind of shows that you got nothing here.

And there is the matter of the nature of your edits on this article. You blatantly engage in WP:OR on talk page, calling a scholar's argument "bad", misrepresent that scholar, and then try to use that as an excuse for removing that scholars work as a source per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Oh and you invent another flimsy excuse, that a particular book, published by a reputable academic press, is "too old" because it was published... in the 1990s. When you are asked to go to WP:RSN, which is what you're suppose to do, you become belligerent and leave threatening messages on my talk. It is extremely disappointing to see a long time user act this way and try to completely circumvent and obstruct Wikipedia policies.

And just to be clear - why exactly are you so insistent on removing the fact that this concept is a "pejorative stereotype"? You know that's a "bad thing", right? And this based on a scholarly work, published by an academic press, by a Polish-Jewish author who himself was subject to anti-Semitic persecution in 1968? This whole episode and controversy is just... strange. I am having trouble understanding why you would want to play down the negative nature of this stereotype. Volunteer Marek 03:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s also unclear why you chose to escalate this since I’ve made no further edits to the article since this came up (aside from removing obvious harassment by an SPA sock puppet who has now been indef banned), though not because of any TB violations but simply because I have better things to do. Why didn’t you just drop it? Volunteer Marek 03:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shes suppose to ping you in a thread you started? Um...well okay.--MONGO (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When she replies to me and “calls in” a bunch admins? Yes.

And MONGO? What are you doing here? I sincerely hope this isn’t you just jumping into a discussion which doesn’t concern you just to get some kicks in because we’ve had numerous disagreements on other topics. Volunteer Marek 06:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that "Żydokomuna" is just the Polish case of what's more generally known as Judeo-Bolshevism, which has a strong connection with wartime antisemitic propaganda. François Robere (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to view this as a violation of Volunteer Marek's topic ban. The dispute is about Schatz, who is mentioned ~~in the lead~~ in connection with WWII. While I appreciate the effort Volunteer Marek has undertaken not to mention WWII in the course of the discussion, these mental gymnastics notwithstanding, what the article says (Schatz writing about WWII) in relation to what the dispute is about (Schatz' credentials), at the very least skirts the 'broadly construed' line. I also would caution Volunteer Marek against overly aggressive section headers: Using intimidation to gain an upper hand in a content dispute is a bit much. As is the protest that Sarah should have pinged him in a discussion they themselves started. El_C 19:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That mention of Schatz in the lead is confusing. The paragraph seems to go chronologically, the first sentence starting at 1939, while the third sentence going to 1941 — with Schatz in the middle, yet his mention is not about WWII, somehow? This is not easy to immediately parse. El_C 20:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Shatz quotes in the lede are *specifically* about 1920s, not ww2. Same is true for his description of the term as a “pejorative stereotype”. In fact almost all of his book is about the interwar period, not ww2. Volunteer Marek 21:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without reading the pertinent work/s, I am no longer confident that Schatz covers WWII with respect to mentions of him in the article. Rather than strikethrough further (to the point of making my first comment incoherent), I'm just noting this here in a separate comment. The topic ban violation is no longer clear cut to me. It is borderline. Because WWII and the Holocaust are so pivotal to the history of the Jews in Poland during the post-war era, even if Volunteer Marek limits himself just to a discussion of the post-war time period (which he has been doing), other participants in the discussion cannot be expected to do the same for his benefit. If WWII wasn't so pivotal to the topic, this would not be so much of an issue, but it is that pivotal, so it is an issue which at the very least, greatly constrains Volunteer Marek's participation in relevant discussions. El_C 21:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, thanks for the comments. My thinking is that the article and topic in their entirety are covered by a Holocaust/WWII topic ban. Żydokomuna is just the Polish term for Jewish Bolshevism, which is an antisemitic canard. It isn't a different type of thing. The myth of Jewish Bolshevism helped to cause World War II, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, and the Holocaust. Someone banned from the Holocaust and WWII is ipso facto banned, in my view, from editing any part of Żydokomuna and Jewish Bolshevism. The ~~idea~~ argument that some parts of it aren't about the Holocaust/WWII explicitly (e.g. restoring to the first sentence that it might be a stereotype rather than a canard) can't hold up.

By the way, the article on Żydokomuna is not in good shape, so be wary of basing any decision on its current content (e.g. if it says the term was first used after World War II, which is not correct). SarahSV ^(talk) 21:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of simplicity, I tend to agree, Sarah. As mentioned, WWII and the Holocaust are pivotal components of the article, so again, I'm not sure how Volunteer Marek hopes to otherwise engage the topic, be it through mainspace edits or talk page discussion while, essentially, walking on eggshells. El_C 21:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I changed my 21:38, 17 May post to say "argument" rather than idea. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that this article and "Jewish Bolshevism" are the same thing is something you added to the article recently, as are all the changes to the lede which have made it into one confusing mess. If they're the same thing why are there two separate articles? In fact, as the article itself clearly states the term is actually from the POST-WAR period. And it's not that "some parts" of the article aren't about Holocaust and WW2. It's actually the opposite. MOST of the article, except for a small background section are NOT about these topics. The article is about the post war period (as it should be) and if the lede did what it's suppose to do, summarize the article, then that'd be clear from the get go. As it is, what has happened is you took an article which is not covered by the topic ban and inserted enough WP:OR and tangential material into it to make it so that it would potentially be covered by the topic ban.

Having said that, I don't have a particularly strong interest in this article so I'm happy to leave it alone, as I would have done had you not escalated this disagreement. Volunteer Marek 22:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 421: / Line 421: @@
 ::::In the interests of simplicity, I tend to agree, Sarah. As mentioned, WWII and the Holocaust are pivotal components of the article, so again, I'm not sure how Volunteer Marek hopes to otherwise engage the topic, be it through mainspace edits or talk page discussion while, essentially, walking on eggshells. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 :::::Noting that I changed my 21:38, 17 May post to say "argument" rather than idea. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 21:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
+::::::The idea that this article and "Jewish Bolshevism" are the same thing is something you added to the article recently, as are all the changes to the lede which have made it into one confusing mess. If they're the same thing why are there two separate articles? In fact, '''as the article itself clearly states''' the term is actually from the POST-WAR period. And it's not that "some parts" of the article aren't about Holocaust and WW2. It's actually the opposite. MOST of the article, except for a small background section are NOT about these topics. The article is about the post war period (as it should be) and if the lede did what it's suppose to do, summarize the article, then that'd be clear from the get go. As it is, what has happened is you took an article which is not covered by the topic ban and inserted enough [[WP:OR]] and tangential material into it to make it so that it would potentially be covered by the topic ban.
+::::::Having said that, I don't have a particularly strong interest in this article so I'm happy to leave it alone, as I would have done had you not escalated this disagreement.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Action	Count
Edits	166395
Edits+Deleted	177980
Pages deleted	3279
Revisions deleted	146
Logs/Events deleted	1
Pages restored	479
Pages protected	2386
Pages unprotected	483
Protections modified	376
Users blocked	1417
Users reblocked	20
Users unblocked	251
User rights modified	21
Users created	5