User talk:Volunteer Marek

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"happy that we finally got a 'self-described neutral observer'" - that made me laugh. That was a positive add. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

An apology

Hi Volunteer Marek, I wanted to apologize for not posting here to alert you when I posted the IBAN notice at the Arb noticeboard last night. I want to make clear that it was an oversight on my part (and my part alone) and not something deliberate on the part of either myself or the Committee. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI - uncivility

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Uncivil comments by Volunteer Marek in page subject to DS.

Ugh

Any of you talk page stalkers know how to jump to a user's contributions from several years ago in their editing history? It used to be trivial to do this but then they changed the software and now you more or less have to scroll 500 edits at a time to get to where you want to look at. Why did they screw this up? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You can enter a to or from date. Should narrow it down. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not working for me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dang, that's pretty lame. Used to work but who knows what they have done now. Works for me if I fill both boxes, not if I fill just one. PackMecEng (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

13 years of editing

Happy First Edit Day, Volunteer Marek, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Patience, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Tried to hat

Hello Volunteer Marek - I tried to hat this comment but it ended up removing it completely. Would you consider reverting the comment as it assumes bad faith, personalizes the matter, and could be in violation of the page restriction? Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It is none of these things and I'd appreciate it if you left it alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The comment is a very civil and accurate description. It should not be hatted. I have commented on the page. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

DS AP BS AE

The only way things are going to get better is to get more Admins and in particular Admins who understand and are willing to implement the sanctions that Arbcom placed in recognition that these AP article are not business as usual. Only one Admin, Coffee, understood this and despite the horrific hazing he got (likely because he made some other Admins look like feckless weasels by comparison) he did a huge service by tightening up and briefly trying to enforce DS. I was going to post a "help-wanted" notice at AN looking for such volunteer Admins, and I ran the idea by Sandstein, who said that's an appropriate place to do it.

It's pointless to badger Admins who are unwilling or unable to enforce constructive editing environments on these pages. With a fairly large population of Admins, I think we should be encouraging a group of the willing to lend a hand. Half of what's on the talk pages these days should get a warning or a block. It's what happens when editors can't find policy and sources to support their preferred edits. It's obvious that editors who follow the abundance of RS reporting and analysis are able to comply to edit NPOV and reflect the sources. we can't let this turn into "The encyclopedia that any fool can edit."

Anyway, I haven't posted for help at AN. Feel free if you have time. If nobody else does, I may do it next week. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Coffee was in the fast lane for a desysop. I’m not sure he’s the best example for you to use. Anyways, yes more admin help is definitely warranted. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

QED. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited America First Policies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Veto power

Re [1], I'm interested in exploring this, but I don't want to clutter that talk page with yet more off-topic. What is this veto power, exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

One person makes an edit. Another person removes it. Nobody - neither the original person nor anyone else - can restore. If there are two groups (which sort of approximates reality) then this restriction basically gives each group, regardless of its size, veto power over the other one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This combines with the first-mover advantage of the editor who rushes to frame the question in one of these now common "informal poll" (aka falsely structured) discussions. The effect is that "Consensus" then means "Unanimity is required". SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

YES! Exactly!!! (If I understand you correctly ). This has come up "before though I can't remember where or when" but most likely at a corporate article. What scares me is to think that gradually special interest groups will figure out just how and when to manage our articles to their advantage. It could happen. Gandydancer (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well one Admin went off the deep end recently by attributing the dysfunction to editors' identities and beliefs rather than their abuse of process. As I've said repeatedly, we also have nowhere near the level of Admin oversight on these articles and the best and brightest Admins rarely intervene. There's way too high a bar to go to AE, and the whole point of DS was supposed to be that Admins would preemptively prevent abusive behavior, not that we should be diverted to preparing litigation briefs for a select panel of Admins. It's extremely unlikely that POV advocates would not learn how to manipulate WP process under these circumstances. It's just trial and error. No evil genius dark money required. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The effect is that "Consensus" then means "Unanimity is required". - There is zero evidence for such a claim. If I wanted to spend the time, I could easily produce multiple examples of surveys that have produced non-unanimous consensuses, and surely you know that. Surveys don't preclude threaded discussion, and that happens regularly. The only difference is that a survey provides a convenient way for people to show their current positions, imposing a degree of order on the usual chaos. While it may make it easier to count votes, that's not a problem with the method but with the misuse of it. So if you see people counting votes in a survey, you advise them that's not how it's done at Wikipedia, problem solved. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody - neither the original person nor anyone else - can restore. - That's incorrect. Nobody can restore without consensus, which is hardly the same thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It's trivial to claim "no consensus" isn't it? SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and if one editor claims "no consensus" they should be, and generally are, ignored. If the group can't agree as to whether a consensus exists, you request an uninvolved close at ANRFC. If editors can't edit in good faith and play fair for the most part, there really is no solution, period. We will not repeal human nature. I currently choose to believe that they do—for the most part. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't cure ignorance. We have plenty of both. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - it's not unanimity but something close to it. Add to that that starting RfCs and seeing them to closure is a verrrrryyyyy time consuming process which means that unless it's something you know you're gonna get ... near-unanimous, support for, why bother? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, like justice, the wheels of Wikipedia consensus turn slowly. I've yet to see a coherent proposal for an alternative that doesn't closely resemble "Get process out of my way so I can impose my policy interpretations." It's easy to find fault with the existing system, coming up with a fully-developed workable solution is an entirely different matter.
My view is that the root problem is self-selected "self-governance", and as long as Wikipedia clings to that model many of its more serious problems will be intractable. I'm not aware of any community in the history of mankind that was this large and diverse and succeeded for any length of time with that model, but somehow the founders felt they were smart enough to disregard that experience. We have spent the past 17 years constructing an enormous baroque castle on a foundation of mush. There is virtually no support for my view, so intractable it is for the foreseeable future. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well gee whiz Mandruss. I've been saying much of what you just said for some time now, often with swift rebukes from you. Self-selection is fraught. But the policies and guidelines are quite robust and reflect a lot of understanding. We do not enforce them. Just in the context of American Politics, we have long threads in which a small group of editors deny DUE WEIGHT and deny mainstream sourcing, who lack the necessary background knowledge to evaluate sources, and who fail WP:CIR in various ways. Enforcement of site norms would require Admins with tough interpersonal skills. And the many Admins that do have those skills are also too wise to get mixed up with the motivated minority of difficult editors. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Any admin who went rogue and did anything dramatic enough to improve things significantly would be flayed by the whip of ADMINACCT and would go the way of Coffee. You know it, and admins damn well know it, so never fault admins for not acting. Fault the system of government that created the world they and every other editor lives in—that's where the power is, and along with it the responsibility. I'm quite sure I have never seen you advocate against that system of government, let alone rebuke you for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My impression was that Coffee in part faced a backlash from other Admins whom he'd shown up as having been too passive. Easier to destroy him than to redirect their own efforts. He reacted over-the-top to the stress and the unwarranted criticism. But of course that's a common pitfall for anyone who faces opposition on the more-or-less anonymous internet. Have a look at @Snooganssnoogans: talk page today. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a look. There is no policy against what MarkBassett was accused of doing, and it would be impossible to create such a policy because you have to define a behavior before you can prohibit it. There is a policy against PA, and a very important guideline against ABF. The other editor assumed that it was bad faith rather than a dumb mistake ("How deceptive and shameless can you be?"), and they deserved the warning Melanie gave. Even if MarkBassett had acted in bad faith, he is only one editor and could have been overridden by consensus. It served no purpose to attack him, and that kind of thing does far more damage than good.
As far as I'm concerned, the "justified personal attack" doctrine—which exists entirely outside of policy—is one of the serious problems resulting from self-selected self-governance. It enables hostility when the editor is in the right, disregarding the fact that editors always feel they are in the right and therefore always feel justified in being hostile. It exists only because the self-selected governing group is heavily skewed toward (1) the combative and (2) those who believe that virtually unlimited tolerance of combativeness is good for the project. Most editors with milder dispositions avoid ANI like the plague because they can't stand to be around that craziness for long.
You'll never convince me of the rightness of that thinking, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No that wasn't my point. My point was that a few very battleground aggressive editors baited Snooganssnoogans into doing something obviously unacceptable and managed to deflect attention from their own behavior to Snoog's lapse in loosing his temper. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen battleground in Markbassett, the target of the PA for which the editor was warned. And I don't buy the "baiting" excuse, ever. We are grownups and able to make grownup choices as to how we respond to others. It's an overused cop-out enabled and perpetuated by the self-selected combative crowd. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No it's just a weakness of some editors that is evident to predators. Just like an antelope with a gimpy leg out in Yellowstone. Anyway we're too far into the details on Bassett. I don't see any baiting from him either. I started out just meaning to show you all the red stop sign templates on his talk page. That's not the best way to work things out with an experienced but excitable editor. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Watch your language, please

VM, please calm down and keep it within the bounds of reasonable discussion. This kind of talk poisons a discussion even if the tirade isn't directed at a specific individual. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "reasonable discussion", by definition, is not possible, with people who spout insane conspiracy theories. The whole fucking problem with these articles (and more generally, out there in the real world) is that reasonable people have bent over backwards to accommodate folks who believe some seriously wacky stuff and pretend that these ridiculous notions can be part of "reasonable discussion" (maybe because the people who spout these ideas run around Wikipedia talk pages giving people barnstars and kissing up and ingratiating themselves with everyone and their dog). It's a fool's game. It's impossible. At some point it becomes necessary to point out that idiotic ideas are idiotic ideas.

Here, maybe a quote will convey this better:

"Suppose someone sits down where you are sitting right now and announces to me that he is Napoleon Bonaparte. The last thing I want to do with him is to get involved in a technical discussion of cavalry tactics at the Battle of Austerlitz. If I do that, I'm getting tacitly drawn into the game that he is Napoleon Bonaparte. " Robert Solow [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And this is also how people can get away with saying messed up crap like "It's more like disparagement of the criminal aspects of Latino and Muslim populations" !!! That right there is wayyyyy more offensive and problematic than calling out conspiracy theories for what they are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You can avoid discussing tactics with a lunatic without exploding into a tirade of expletives. I though maybe a gentle nudge would be enough for you to get the message. It wasn't - you appear to be defending your right to post this kind of objectionable language - so I will be more explicit: posting comments full of "fucking idiot" and "bullshit" and "Oh jebus freakin crust but this is dumb" is disruptive and violates WP:CIVILITY. It poisons discourse and encourages others to reply in kind. You can expose nonsense and denounce conspiracy theories without this kind of explosion. Please restrain yourself in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Responding to your edit summary: It actually hurts your argument to post this kind of rant. It makes you look unstable, emotional, hostile. It leaves the other person (the one who posted the conspiracy theory) looking like the rational one. Remember the old saying "never argue with an idiot, because people watching may not be able to tell the difference". Make sure people can tell the difference - by the tenor and reasonableness of your own posts. Another saying (saw it on Wikipedia, forget where, so paraphrasing): "When I argue with someone, I am not hoping to convince them; I am hoping to convince the onlookers." You are more likely to get consensus for your position if you post like a mature adult with reason on your side. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's what people like to tell themselves. Good always triumphs over evil, rational discourse beats out emotional propaganda, be nice even when others aren't, etc. etc. etc. But the proof is in the pudding. How effective has this kids-glove nicey-nice "your crazy ideas are just as valid for discussion as everyone else's ideas" been on these articles? Not particularly successful, judging by the quality of the relevant articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why give them ammunition? PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie is a good editor and so are you. She is better in that she controls her emotions and you do not. Perhaps you are better in other ways that I won't get into right here, but it would be a shame if you do not take her excellent advise. Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting

Apparently, the problem is much more extensive. [3] GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Volunteer Marek. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Order of comments

Volunteer Marek, I just wanted to raise one point to please respect other editors' comments and the order in which they were submitted, in the recent discussion on NSZ you wrote over my and user GizzyCatBella comments, which is uncalled for. I think that my concern that the text about NSZ does not need to be changed out entirely is a legitimate issue. What we have in the article now is fine, and if perhaps user FR wants to add a sentence regarding anti-semitism that may be acceptable, but there is no need to re-write the entire text about NSZ, since all the sources say NSZ was anti-communist first and foremost, FR want to shift the focus to anti-semitism instead and that's a POV WP:PUSH. --E-960 (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump

You violated DS because the {{NPOV}} tag had already been added to the article here. I contested the addition of the tag, and then you added it again. The editnotice warning clearly says: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.. Did you obtain consensus to add the tag? No. Was the tag challenged? Yes. So you did violate DS. Take this as last warning: next time you do this type of thing, I will report you to AE. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That addition was for an entirely different reason. The reason for my addition was not challenged. You, on the other hand, clearly violated DS by breaking 1RR. So take your empty threats and heed them yourself buddy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Cernovich

On June 29, 2018, you reverted my edit, which is an update to his page replacing his past affiliation with the alt-right with his new affiliation with the alt-lite. His name even features prominently on the alt-lite Wiki page, so it is absurd to leave his Wiki page saying alt-right. Please undo your revert of my edit. I provided six sources more recent than the sources for the previous claim to back up my update, and you have reverted this change without comment. Please undo your revert. Thanks. 72.53.0.45 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Volunteer Marek. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously dude? I'm very disappointed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

DRN on AK

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Home Army. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Call for decorum

Hi Marek, I think this section heading and tone was unnecessary: [4]. I'm speaking of experience as I've been called in the past of a "Hard line anti-Nazi" and "Nazi hunter" (pejoratively) and multiple editors have been accused of "tag-teaming" with me or playing a "supporting role" etc. etc.

So it's distressing to me to see such comments on articles' Talk pages. If you must have frank conversations with editors, please do so on their user Talk pages or at an appropriate noticeboard. I'm afraid that this level of discourse is driving away editors who are less involved in the topic and may find such atmosphere toxic. With that in mind, would you mind if I change the section header to something more neutral, i.e. "Lead edit"? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Since you asked, go for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marek, could you please tone it down over at Bielski partisans, both on the talk page and in edit summaries? These are clearly not blind reverts; enough objections have been raised on the article's Talk page. Personal attacks are not helping. If anything, they are perhaps causing other editors to stay away from the discussion.

Separately, if someone is arguing for the inclusion of a source, then I believe that the onus is on them to demonstrate that the source meets the criteria in WP:IRS. You've suggested: "Here are things you should try: rather than attacking editors, try to get consensus. Start an RfC. Inquite about sources at RSN. Bring it up on NPOVN. Ask for dispute resolution". One could say the same to you. Why haven't you tried these approaches? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry K.e., these were indeed blind reverts, and I don't appreciate it when someone purposefully tries to insert their edits in between mine when I'm obviously making incremental changes, just so that they can create "artificial reverts" and then go running to WP:3RR with a report (which is exactly what Icewhiz did). I don't appreciate being set up. I don't appreciate someone clearly gunning for me and trying to trip me up just so they can win their little WP:BATTLEGROUND. I don't appreciate having to deal with someone acting in bad faith.

As to the RS issue - it's an article by a historian. IPN has been discussed at WP:RSN before and Icewhiz was told it was a reliable source. It's ridiculous to ask me to go there every single time Icewhiz decides that he WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that he WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. So to put it briefly, I don't have to go to RSN because it was already discussed at RSN and because a source by a specialist scholar in the field is considered reliable a priori. It's pretty clear Icewhiz is willing to make up stuff and challenge ANY source that doesn't jive with the crusade he's on. It's ridiculous to entertain every single one of these challenges when the sources are obviously reliable.

And you know what else? Icewhiz had no problem using IPN as a source when it was useful for his POV [5]. Icewhiz's interpretation of the reliable sources policy does not go much beyond "if it agrees with me, it's reliable, if it doesn't, it's not". You see the same thing where in one instance he'll insist on "only scholarly sources", then in like, almost the next edit, try to remove sources by historians from an article, while trying to pack it full of newspaper and magazine articles. Then he'll come back to the talk page, and with a straight face, demand "consistency in sourcing". Hell, he's even tried to discount Dov Levin and Yitzhak Arad because they weren't sufficiently anti-Polish for him.

As to the connection between FR and Icewhiz, just look at the link I provided. Here it is again. Something like that does not happen by accident. Just because you might have been falsely accused of something (hey, wasn't someone accusing me of tag-teaming with you actually?) doesn't mean that such a phenomenon does not exist. And look at the edits they made - BOTH of them references something OTHER than what they were reverting. They were reverting the claim that Zegota was unique. However, in their edit summaries they BOTH reference the issue of how Zegota was funded. Their edit summaries have nothing to do with what they're reverting! They clearly didn't even bother to check what they were reverting, they just saw that I made an edit and clicked "undo". That's like a definition of a blind revert. A very sloppy blind revert too. And they both do it, successively!

I have a lot of respect for the work you've done. But you're letting a lot slide here and are all to willing to overlook the disruptive and disturbing behavior on the part of Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Elżbieta Janicka work

[6] photographs are only of “air” and flowers in this exposition unfortunately but in any case she is an artist, focused on the Holocaust related photography art. She is also writing essays about the Jewish suffering and the Shoa. Reliable source for art and literature related articles indeed but not for history. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced

Sorry, this is a mobile phone edit so doing the formatting to add sources to an article is difficult. The sources for the NRA claim are in the talk discussion. Yes, unsourced is often used as justification for removal (I've done it myself) but we should try to source before removing, especially when the sources are in the talk page discussion. Second, if you claim the statement is removed because other sources contradict it then please add those to the talk page since currently we have several sources that support the statement. Final comment, I don't care for the specific text used and think it could be better integrated. Springee (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any RELIABLE source presented on talk. There's some low quality junky sources, but no actual reliable sources. The sentence is also contradicted by subsequent sentences in the paragraph, no?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion thread refactoring

Good morning VM. Re your revert here:[7] I see from your edit summary that you object to the section headers. That's no reason to bring back those lengthy discussion threads into the survey section. If you don't like the headers, just change the headers. — JFG ^talk 08:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the appropriate headers would be and I'm not sure if there's a legitimate way to split up that discussion. It's a bit of a mess but it is what it is and I don't see your changes as an improvement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's standard practice in RfCs to move lengthy threads to a "Discussion" section. If you're not sure about the neutrality of headers, just call them "Thread 1", "Thread 2" and "Thread 3". BTW, I did not "highlight oppose arguments", I just took the longest threads and placed them below; two were in followup to an Oppose, and one to a Support. I took care to leave the first reply in the Survey section, so that in each case readers can see the argument of the !voter and its immediate rebuttal by another editor; then they can follow the thread that developed from there. — JFG ^talk 08:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I meant your section heading highlighted the "oppose" arguments. You could've titled the sections "Scholarly journal" and "Established academic" or something (that would've been bad too). Anyway, it seems in categorizing these discussions, you also broke up some threads, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I took pains to copy the threads exactly and add links to them, didn't break anything. Regarding headers, I also added question marks to all titles, so that can't be construed as taking a stance one way or another. But again, this could be refactored with any meaningless headers, if that's what you prefer. I usually prefer to assign headers that mean something. Again, nobody owns talk page headers, and you could just change them. As it stands, the RfC is hard to follow. Would you agree to move the threads out again, with bland headers? — JFG ^talk 08:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ping. Those threads are getting longer and more unwieldy with each passing hour… Refactoring is sorely needed but I won't proceed without your agreement. — JFG ^talk 17:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to follow because of obstructive bludgeons. Refactoring once a week won't fix that. And when things sorely need fixing, a less involved editor will handle it. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not involved in bludgeoning. You, on the other hand… — JFG ^talk 17:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about you? Bludgeon? What? SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

<cut>per WP:TEND</cut>

No Icewhiz, I am not edit warring. I am trying to make edits to the article while you keep jumping in to make changes or and blind reverts, despite the fact that you know I'm editing the article. As User:NeilN has pointed out to you before, if I'm not mistaken (might have been FR, I confuse you two), a series of edits made consecutively which could've been made as one edit (if somebody didn't jump in to eff it up) does not constitute multiple reverts. I would really appreciate it if you changed you approach to editing in this area and stopped it with the WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear - your edits were challenged, and you've reverted multiple times - this is not a consecutive edit situation.Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A series of edits which could have been made as one consecutive edit does not constitute multiple reverts. Otherwise, gee, somebody, like, say, you, could jump in and create artificial reverts, so that they could then engage in sanction-shopping. In fact, I even asked you to hold off on the reverts until I was done with making changes to the article. Instead you resumed with the blind reverts and even removed the "In use" tag I added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

And you jumping in literally within between two seconds of my edit created multiple editing conflicts, which means that I don't even know which version I was editing. This is exactly why YOU are not suppose to do this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Icewhiz (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Please what is happening in the article History of the Jews in Poland and the Lwow pogrom (1918). There is an concerted attack going on.Tatzref (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Iwaniec Uprising

Hi, I'm Icewhiz. Volunteer Marek, thanks for creating Iwaniec Uprising!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I added an interwiki to the Polish/Russian/Bealrussian - which seem to be well sourced and could be used to develop this article further on enwiki.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

text

This will be deleted in 36 hours, so take your own off-Wiki copy if you want it. Zero^talk 09:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

AE

You've been reported.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahem

You may want to revise some pronouns, here. The last time I checked I was still female. Kleuske (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

My sincere apologies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

In case you were not aware

...of this: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I once left an explanation for some of their results, but since they are Trump true believers, and my explanation wasn't the type Sarah H. Sanders would provide, they just deleted it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from the history of Poland in World War II (1933-45) for three months.

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. Sandstein 20:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)