User talk:Gitz6666/Archive of 2023

My works

Hi, great personality, I submit my work for your approval. Please let me know if they disapprove. Let me work on them again. https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:ContentTranslation#published Ben Bilal (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ben Bilal, I did not understand your comment. Why are you sharing the link to some translations I made using the Wikipedia:Content translation tool? Translating on en.Wikipedia is fine, but it must be done in line with policy and guidelines, e.g. the following one from WP:MACHINE:

Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing.

By the way, did you edit Sharia and Prophetic biography recently? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit I just reverted is your doing, @Ben Bilal, then you should stop: multiple editors on multiple projects have already told you that adding automatically translated content to articles whose content you can't understand is disruptive and is bound to lead to blocks. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of my edits were turned down for technical reasons. Religious vandalism and yours. I haven't been able to understand you yet. Ben Bilal (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see: you don't understand me, @Ben Bilal. Please, let me know if you understand the following users:

On tr.wiki, tr:Kullanıcı:Sabri76: Bununla beraber, lütfen İçerik Çevirmeni aracı, çeşitli programlar ya da web sayfaları aracılığıyla Türkçe dışında bir dilden çevirisi yapılmış sayfaları, anlaşılırlık ve çeviri doğruluğu konusunda gerekli kontrollerde bulunmadan Vikipedi'ye eklemeyiniz [1].
On fr.wiki, fr:Utilisateur:ManuRoquette: Ne contribuez pas dans les langues que vous ne maîtrisez pas, les traducteurs automatiques sont loin d'être parfaits. De plus, il est encore plus déconseillé d'ajouter sur plusieurs wiki des information que vous savez être non-consensuelles [2].
On fr.wiki, fr:Utilisateur:Kirham: N’utilisez pas un traducteur automatique. Si vous voulez qu’un article soit traduit, faites-en la demande au projet idoine [3].
On az.wiki, multiple users, e.g. az:İstifadəçi:Burocan: Hər vaxtınız xeyir. Çoxsaylı məzmun əlavələriniz kütləvi qrammatik norma pozuntuları, maşın tərcüməsi elementləri, habelə stil kitabçası pozuntuları ehtiva edir. Sizə bundan öncə də sözügedən məqamlar üzrə həmkarların müraciəti olsa da, fəaliyyətinizdə dəyişiklik müşahidə olunmur [4].
On ha.wiki, ha:User:Uncle Bash007: Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages [5]

There also problems of verifiability and neutrality with your edits, which have been pointed out to you by several users, e.g. here on tr.wiki, by myself here on simple.wiki and here on it.wiki, and by others elsewhere [6].

If you don't stop this behaviour, I will submit a request for a global ban on Meta. Please spare the Wikipedia community and me this hassle. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took all the warnings into account and for example, my later works were not seen as problematic by those who made these warnings. Ben Bilal (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben Bilal, this very recent edit of yours is problematic [7] (and it's also WP:BLOCKEVASION). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So ask yourself a simple question: Other people who are at least as smart as me don't see a problem here, and only I can able to see it. Ben Bilal (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your simple question doesn't make sense in English, @Ben Bilal, maybe what you meant to say was something like: "ask yourself a simple question: why do other people who are at least as smart as me see no problem, while only I am able to see it?" Well, if that's what you meant, the answer is simple: it's not only me!!! you've been indefinitely blocked on 12 different Wikipedias for god's sake! ar.wiki, tg.wiki, de.wiki, media.wiki, simple.wiki, fr.wiki, ha.wiki, en.wiki, es.wiki, id.wiki, ur.wiki, ps.wiki [8]; plus the temporary block on it.wiki [9]. Do you really believe that everyone is wrong about you? Why don't you listen to criticism and stop the disruption? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've talked to you too much, and I think I've explained enough. Some of these were my faults, so I wrote that too. The reason I was banned in plain English was because I contributed too much. For many, there is no need to even speak. You can research their level yourself. The advancement of science and communication will overcome these challenges, but it will take time. The point that I regret is the harm that the ignorant masses inflict not only on themselves, but also on humanity. Ben Bilal (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I understand that your answer to my questions is: yes, I think everyone is wrong about me (they are "ignorant masses"), and no, I'm not going to stop automatically translating my content and spamming it all over the wiki-world. That's a shame, @Ben Bilal, because if you get a global ban, this will also prevent you from editing on tr.wiki, in your own language, where you contribution could be useful and appreciated. Are you aware of this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"ignorant masses"; What I mean by this is the Islamic-Sharia terrorist organizations that close schools and attack education, and those who have to live under their influence. do not distort. Ben Bilal (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a misunderstanding on my part, not a deliberate distorion. Please allow me to rephrase your answers so as to achieve full understanding:

You admit that you are also to blame for your blocks, e.g. because you contributed too much to en.wiki.
However, the accusation of spamming automatically translated, unverifiable and non-neutral texts is unfair: the Wikipedias that blocked you for this reason were wrong.
You are not going to stop translating your texts, even though you are aware that if you are blocked globally for this reason, you will not be able to work on tr.wiki either.

Please think hard, @Ben Bilal, especially about answer No. 3. Do you really think it is worth it? Can't you just stop contributing in languages you don't know? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to open myself a little more; I am a person who has received religious education for 7 years, can understand Arabic, English and Azerbaijani languages beside Turkish, and is familiar with religious (Islamic) concepts and idioms in other languages. I think that the prevention and restoration of destructive acts of religious character, which are constantly occurring in the Islamic world and from time to time in the rest of the world, are possible with adequate and accurate information. I contribute to this. However, it was a difficult road. For about 1 year, I have been following a much simpler way (also recommended by wikipedia) such as contributing by translating and providing clarity with minor changes and corrections. I do not engage in mutual combat for my withdrawn contributions. I am not pessimistic about the future. Ben Bilal (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to be honest and open, @Ben Bilal. I have no religious belief and personally don't find your goal blameworthy. Providing also a secular and scientifically-minded reading of religious phenomena is vital for an encyclopaedia that aims at live up to neutrality. But this can only be done with reliable sources at hand and, most importantly, only in a language one knows well. Since I don't speak Chinese, Uzbek and Swedish, I don't think that my secular and scientifically-minded views are so important that they deserve to be shared with readers of the Chinese, Uzbek and Swedish Wikipedias; they wouldn't understand me anyway. So, please, listen: I've spent hours cleaning up the mess you've done on it.wiki, fr.wiki, en.wiki and es.wiki. If you speak Turkish, Arabic, English and Azerbaijani, as you say, than please limit your contribution to the corresponding projects, otherwise I will request a global ban for you and that might prevent you from editing also where you contribution is appreciated. OK? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed my old contributions to see if they are still in place. They are vandalized in some languages. I have seen that they are preserved in Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, etc. languages that I do not know and do not understand a word of. Can you interpret this? Ben Bilal (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "vandalized"? I can see that your edits were removed by "local" editors.

On zh.wiki I made one edit in the Quran article talk page [10]. Your edits were reverted (if I'm not wrong) by zh:User:黑暗魔君.
On ja.wiki I made one very clumsy edit in the article namespace, which actually restored your edits [11]. Luckily my edit was reverted, and I apologised and explained my mistake on an user talk page [12]. Your edits had already been reverted by that user, ja:利用者:Y-route.
I've never edited on ko.wik. As far as I can see, most of your edits were reverted by ko:사용자:호로조, e.g. [13] (with edit summary "out of context") and [14] (claiming that your content was factually wrong - unverifiable).

You see, @Ben Bilal, your edits were reverted (not "vandalized") because they were of poor quality. Even assuming your good faith, you're bound to make lots of mistakes because you don't speak Chinese, Japanese or Korean: it's inevitable. Let me ask you again: are you sure you don't want to stop this disruption? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in knowing that all your edits on ky.wikipedia (Kyrgyz Wikipedia) have been reverted: [15]. Note that I've never edited there. And most of your edit on tg.wiki (Tajik Wikipedia), where you're currently blocked, have also been removed [16]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked again. My Contributions that I made more than 1 year ago are still in place. I say that local users should decide the correctness or irregularity of the expressions, not you. By the way, I was blocked in Tajik, but my translation for the sharia article was approved, the important thing is the result. I would like to say that if those who reverted my contributions or blocked me had told me that I was creating problems in my contributions through language and expression, I would have stopped contributing anyway. For example, there was such a problem in Japanese and I stopped contributing. Still, a few small contributions remain Ben Bilal (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say if those who reverted my contributions or blocked me had told me that I was creating problems in my contributions through language and expression, I would have stopped contributing. However, here on en.wiki you've been indefintely blocked on article mainspace, and yet you're still contributing from an IP address. How do you explain that? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hugo Krabbe

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hugo Krabbe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the topic... I guess?

Gitz6666, since you've now chosen to start editing articles in the topic area of Poland and the Holocaust (which I'm sure you know is under discretionary sanctions), and since you had never edited this topic area before, I feel compelled to comment. Since replying to this comment may potentially violate your topic ban from the Russian-Ukrainian topics, you do not have to respond, or can respond privately by email - regardless, I personally will not see a reply to this - whatever it says - as a breach of the topic ban, I will not report you anywhere for replying and if someone else does I will defend you on the basis of this message right here.

Let me express my primary concern right at the outset. It is definitely eye-brow raising that you would choose to appear in this topic area immediately after you were topic banned in another topic area, in good part because of the disputes between me and you. This is especially concerning given that I've noted before that you have a tendency to follow me around (stalk) and appear out of the blue on articles I'm involved in. Before this you were doing this across different articles within the same topic area (Russia-Ukraine) now that you got a topic ban there, it involves skipping across topic areas.

Having said that allow me to say I regard you as an smart, constructive and valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I do think there are certain parts to your approach which get you into trouble but there's no point in rehashing these. I think it's quite likely that your contributions in this new topic area will be quite valuable as well and welcome your participation. The topic area could definitely use more active editors (if you want a short list of "things need to be done" let me know or ask User:Ealdgyth). You have a good nose for sources and write well so there's much you can contribute. My obvious concern is that you are only editing these articles simply because I am involved and that you may hold grudges or vendettas from our interactions in the other topic area. I am 100% willing to put those concerns aside and AGF the hell out of your appearance, precisely because I think you can do a lot of good here. I, personally, do not hold grudges and I'm always ready to turn over a new leaf and collaborate productively with (almost) anyone.

Like any other contentious area, this topic has a lot of institutional history and context. If you need any help or are simply curious about anything related to the area (like... who is Icewhiz? Just an example) let me know. I do sincerely look forward to your contributions. Volunteer Marek 16:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to congratulate you on the tact and amiability with which you have framed this conversation. I appreciate it very much and it sets me up to be as cooperative and open with you as possible.

First of all, I can assure you that I don't hold any grudge or vendetta against you. I admit that the topic ban left a few scratches on my pride... I particularly resented the attitude of some editors in the discussion that led to it, an attitude that I found uninformed and unnecessarily hostile. That attitude was inexcusable, especially when it came from experienced editors who were already aware of the kind of tendentious editing I had to deal with. But I have no grudge against you, nor against MVBW. You were neither uninformed nor opinionated, but rather deeply engaged in an editorial conflict that was exhausting for everyone. I respect political passion, even when it comes from loyalties and sensibilities different from mine. I have no feeling of enmity towards you and the last thing I want to do is chase you around in Wikipedia to personally annoy you. I also sympathise with the recent attack on your privacy and reputation, which I find, as you know, not OK to say the least.

It is not true that I have a tendency to follow [you] around (stalk) and appear out of the blue on articles [you are] involved in; on the contrary, I know that you and MVBW were following me around in the area with an uncooperative/blocking attitude. I also know that on several occasions I avoided editing articles and commenting in discussions for the sole reason that you were active there. Bottom line, this shared feeling of being haunted by the other proves that there was an exhausting editorial conflict between us, and I have no desire to resume it.

Having said this, I must confess that I was astounded to read the essay on your "Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust". I was already familiar with Icewhiz and the Warsaw concentration camp hoax, I had also already read Jew with a coin and Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, and I had gotten a bad impression from them. But I didn't know that nationalist editing had affected the area so strongly. Confirmation bias is a real danger, so I took the time to check the article history and the talk page discussion at Jan T. Gross, Richard C. Lukas and Wojciech Muszyński, plus the article Institute of National Remembrance. What I read in the essay by Grabowski and Klein corresponds closely to my experiences in the area of war crimes in the Ukraine. Tendentious/nationalist editing, uncivility and sealioning, and above all the practice of "working in tandem" by following each other's edits to push a POV cause enormous damage to WP:CON as a working method and ultimately to WP:NPOV and WP:V as core polices. I saw this at work, I reacted to it by opening several (too many?) community discussions and I was topic banned. Too bad.

However, after the topic ban I have resumed working intensively on it.wiki (yesterday I created this it:Paul Laband) and I have other projects I would like to realise on en.wiki (an article now at GAN now and the filling of a big gap, Santi Romano). The idea of resuming that exhausting editorial conflict with you fills me with anguish: it will not happen. In my opinion, after the publication of Grabowski's and Klein's essay, you are in a situation of heavy conflict of interest with this topic: you should take a step back, consider something like a self-imposed topic ban, so that other editors can discuss what needs to be done on these pages in a more serene atmosphere. This is my suggestion for you. As for me, at most I will propose a few edits based on Grabowski and Klein~~, but I can assure you that my presence in the area will be marginal and practically non-existent~~. With regard to noticeboard and other general discussions, I will always express my concerns and warn the community of the risk of severe disruption, deviations from our policies and removal of users, resulting from a deeply problematic pattern of behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC) ; edited 10:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strike through because obviously I've changed my mind about my commitment in the area and got involved. However, I can still assure you that this has nothing to do with you and that I have no bad feelings towards you. I'm looking forward to reading the second part of the Icewhiz saga on your blog. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently this was a false hope huh? That's what I get for doing the AGF. Volunteer Marek 08:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you doubt my good faith. I really have no hostility towards you. While I don't know you, I sense that in RL we could be, if not friends, at least good colleagues. Your essay on edit war is brilliant and I quite like your humour. I also think that your contribution may be damaging for the encyclopedia, expecially in areas where you have strong views, and it must be kept in check. I might be wrong about the quality of your editing, but there's no bad faith involved in having this opinion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Krabbe

Dear Gitz, In addition to the GA Review for the article Hugo Krabbe I also wanted to open another channel of communication with you where I can chat outside of the official review process. With regard to the infobox picture I had the impression that you wanted to remove the dark frame with its Latin inscription. This can be done with the template "CSS image crop" or you can also crop the image and save a cropped version in Wikimedia Commons for this purpose. In biographies I like to show a cropped passport-photo-like picture in the infobox and give in addition the original full portrait further down in the body. See e.g. Gustavus Hamilton, 2nd Viscount Boyne, or Antoine Hamilton, but of course you do not need to follow that style. I wonder what you think about it. Whenever I do this, I add "Detail from the portrait below" by way of a title. Otherwise, editors come along and delete the "CSS image crop", probably simply because it is such an easy way to increment their edit count. – I looked at Hugo Krabbe in other languages. In addition to English, Wikipedia has this article in Russian, Indonesian, German, Italian, and Dutch. I can read the last three and I guess so can you. I find it very strange that Krabbe is described as a "filosofo danese" (Danish philosopher) rather than "professore di diritto olandese" (or similar) in the lead of the Italian article. Quite a few of Krabbe's Dutch terminology is difficult to translate. I hope you do not mind my criticism. Don't we pull together on the same string to improve Wikipedia? I hope we can learn from each other to do this even better. With best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Johannes Schade, I appreciate having a more informal channel of communication.

template:CSS image crop. That's brilliant, thank you. I've already applied it to the infobox picture and now I'll add the second picture, as you suggest.
While "legal philosopher" would be acceptable, filosofo danase is simply an error, which I have just corrected. I'm quite active on it.wiki.
I don't mind criticism, I'm not touchy. With regard to legal terminology, if there's anything you don't understand let me know and I'll do my best to clarify.

Thank you for your help in improving the article.

Best wishes, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gitz, I appleciate your attitude. It is a pleasure to work with you. Please forgive me my obsession with some unimportant stylistic matters. I feel that many articles have horribly untidy code. Of course these cosmetics are not part of the GA criteria. Another one of these is that I feel that template names should all be written with a leading upper case: birth date -> Birth date; death date and age -> Death date and age; sfn -> Sfn; cite book -> Cite book etc. I think we are making good progress. I have looked a bit around, but I do not seem to find additional sources. You have done excellent work. Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johannes, I really appreciate your suggestions and I am impressed by your thorough review. This is one of the most enjoyable activities I have done on Wikipedia in recent times, I am also learning a lot from it and the article is undoubtedly improving. So please do not change your approach. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Johannes Schade, I've now implemented most of your suggestions. However, I've some doubts about how to proceed with the "Further reading section". If I'm not wrong, the only source in "Bibliography" not quoted in the text is the 2013 book by Stella - too little for a self-standing "Further reading" section.

Allow me to explain the criterion I've followed with citation and bibliography. The bibliography now contains only sources that deal with Krabbe's work. Most of them (possibly with the sole exception of Stella 2013) are quoted in the article. Moreover, when in the footnotes I quote other works that don't deal with Krabbe but that occasionally mention Krabbe (e.g., Carl Schmitt, Political Theology; H. Kelsen, Des Problem; Canihac) or that support other contents covered in the article (e.g. Eyffinger, Congleton, Kossman, Stolleis, von Bernstorff, etc.), these sources are not included in the "Bibliography" and are included in the footnotes using <ref> and the template:Cite book - no template:Sfn. The rationale is to provide the reader with a "Bibliography" section that is entirely on Krabbe and on Krabbe only.

Is this OK? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gitz666, I understand your idea of separating under "bibliography" the sources for the biographical subject from sources needed to support more peripheral matters such as historical context and comparisons with other people. I have found a similar need to make the core monographs that deal with the biographical subject stand out among the many other less central sources in Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. See the list of 5 links to "subject matter monographs" that precedes the list of sources. The reviewers have left this list untouched, while they have not hesitated to delete other "duplicative" material. I do not think this feature has been imitated by anyone. The normal approach followed in Wikipedia for the {{Sfn}}-style citation style is to include all the sources cited in one long list typically entitled Sources and not Biliography, often subdivided in Books, Websites, News, etc. See the FA Frederick the Great, promoted in 2021, which I like to cite as an example to follow. I feel that a list with only one item under Further reading is not a problem if this item is worthwhile. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m impressed

My impression about your WP:NPOV edits to the challenging subject. Thanks @Gitz6666 🙂. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your position in the Appeal to authority RfC

If this is an opposition to the last oppose, please say it explicitly and do not use bold face. Otherwise, please remove the indentation, i.e., the column. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the indentation. Indeed my !vote was not meant to be "oppose to other users' opposition". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrative example

In this edit you incorrectly wrote that the Blue Police were "Jewish collaborators". Of course, the Blue Police were ethnic Poles and I corrected the error here. I'm guessing this was either bad wording on your part or you simply confused two things. Either way, unless somebody wishes to challenge the correction, which would be silly, that's all there is to this as far as we're concerned.

But. It occurred to me that this is a pretty good opportunity to illustrate how this topic area got so bad and vicious to began with, back in 2018 (and maybe again now), and also the way in which the G&K paper is written.

Suppose that you were not Gitz666, suppose you were a "Polish editor" (I know you're not, this wouldn't have actually mattered). Well, Icewhiz would have already filed a WP:AE report on this before you even woke up. In it you'd be accused of "Holocaust distortion" and he'd claim that you were "perpetuating a hoax" that the Blue Police were Jewish. A few of his supporters would show up to that report. One would perhaps shake their head sadly and act really disappointed and ask, with tears in their Wikipedia eyes, how an editor who makes such edits is even allowed to edit Wikipedia. Another one, would jump in yelling about how this is a long standing pattern, that you have already been topic banned from other areas, that you made some edit 15 years ago that were also problematic, that unless administrators take extreme action against you immediately, all of Wikipedia will collapse within a fortnight. Maybe even some uninvolved person would take a look and say "yeah, this looks bad, the Blue Police weren't Jewish". Because out of context, it WOULD look bad. Your pleas that you had no problem with this being corrected would fall on deaf ears. If someone showed up to defend you and point out that it could've just been a simple error and that you seemed not to object to the correction, Icewhiz and others would accuse them of tag teaming and of being part of some big conspiracy and someone would state that it's very strange that an editor who edits in a topic area shows up to a WP:AE report on that topic and that the very fact they're defending you is suspicious in itself and insinuate you're somehow coordinating with them.

Even if you quickly corrected your error, it wouldn't have mattered. This "diff" is just too good to pass up.

Now, WP:AE admins can actually be pretty good (at least these days) and they'd probably discern that this was a simple mistake and just warn you to be more careful in the future or some such. Or you'd get unlucky and some trigger happy admin would slap a topic ban on you.

A few months later, a sock puppet or some such, would go and add this edit of yours to "List of Hoaxes" on Wikipedia or similar. Maybe you'd remove it because it was an error not a hoax but then Icewhiz or someone would jump in and restore it and go to ArbCom demanding a new case or something. Whenever you ran into Icewhiz, he'd bring up this very diff of your error and repeat the claim that you were spreading hoaxes on Wikipedia, despite the fact that this has been explained as a simple mistake repeatedly. Oh wait, in fact, if you claimed it was a "simple error" that would be used against you too - the response would be that there's nothing "simple" about it and that kind of comment illustrates that you are trivializing the Holocaust.

Sooner or later Icewhiz would be banned though. Editors like him always are. It's more of a question of how much damage they do in the meantime and how many people they hurt before some admin finally figures out how bad news that kind of editor is. But that wouldn't end it. A twitter account would pop up and accuse you of blaming Jews for the Holocaust because you wrote that the Blue Police were Jewish. Icewhiz would make sock puppets and keep re-adding this diff to reports and discussions. Those Icewhiz supporters would show up to these discussions and fan the flames. Icewhiz would contact an outside person, maybe a journalist, maybe an academic and convince them that you are part of some grand conspiracy and use this diff as evidence. You. Wrote. That. Blue. Police. Were. Jewish. Accidentally and probably just with bad choice of wording and bad sentence structure, but you did. It would be trivial to write that up pretending that this was intentional and deliberate and that you are doing it because you are a Polish nationalist. And some people would eat that right up.

All this might sound hyperbolic. It's actually an understatement. I skipped all the parts about how this would be accompanied by being outed, threats, abuse, your family would get doxed, and all the other pleasantries that come along with editing in this topic area (unless you're anonymous). It's the story of Icewhiz in a nutshell.

And this is how a topic area gets destroyed. Specifically how collegiality and capacity for cooperation gets completely destroyed. We're still dealing with this crap four years after Icewhiz got topic banned. This is why this topic area is so toxic. And here is the sad-funny thing. All those discretionary sanctions and extra special admin powers? They actually make things worse. Precisely because they encourage this type of behavior. Why bother working out a compromise with someone when it's so much easier to try to get them banned over an accidental mistake, like the one you made here? Why let it go, acknowledge that errors get made and what matters is if they are corrected, when the admins made seeking sanctions against others so cheap and easy to get? It almost seems like some admins actively encouraged - in the past, not now - exactly this kind of behavior (if you have a problem write a report! Stop bickering on the talk page, bring it to AE!) and then... turned around and complained about how battlground-ish the area had become. Sheesh.

I think most of your edits are fine. And I hope that collaboration and collegiality can be restored to this topic area. Volunteer Marek 06:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this edit [17] was a "simple error" with reguard to the final bit concerning the Blue police (national police) qualfied as "Jewish collaborators". In the middle of the night, I read "Jewish" and understood "Polish". I know what the Blue Police was, I read this essay of Grabowsky (which I quoted and added to the bibliography) and also this essay of Frydel, and I made a few edits on the Blue Police as an egregious case of Polish (not Jewish) collaboration, e.g. this one [18] and others. Thank you for fixing my mistake. Obviosuly I did not revert you. Note that I did not revert your two partial reverts of my edits ([19][20]) although I don't agree with them. I take the BRD cycle as the gospel and hope with all my heart that in the HiP area there will be no more of that edit war shit we've recently seen elsewhere.

Regarding Icewhiz, I think you misunderstood him in a way that can only be explained by the very close and conflicting nature of your interactions: we often fail to understand the people who are closest to us and who, for better or worse, are most significant to us. I'm not talking about Icewhiz as a person - I don't know anything about him and I haven't even looked at his edit history; I am curious to read the second part of your text about him on your blog, though, the doxxing issue and all of that. Rather than the person, I'm talking about the dynamic between Icewhiz (and what you call his supporters or "meatpuppets") and you (and your supporters): I think you did not fully understand what was going on, though everything is relatively simple if not obvious and, so to speak, out in the open. Maybe later, if you are interested, I could try to clarify what I mean by this - it might also be useful in light of the upcoming ArbCom case - but I don't have time at the moment.

Final note - please, don't get me wrong, I appreciated you taking contact here on my user page and expressing your views on the Icewhiz thing. I think this helps very much to "heal the wounds", so to speak. But at first the temptation to dismiss your TL;DR with this reply [21] was irresistible. I'm happy I resisted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I never threated (Redacted) so right there there's one small difference between me and Icewhiz.

That second part is hard to write because it's more personal - I can send you what I have so far if you'd like.

And yeah, ok, fair enough on that last diff. Volunteer Marek 21:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there are differences between you and Icewhiz: your positions and behaviour are so different as to make any comparison impossible. I'd be happy to read what you have written so far, but if it's personal and you're not yet sure about it, I'm also fine with longingly waiting for it to be published and enduring the suspance further. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit, this conversation is fuckin' wild. The shocking imagery in VM's language describing disturbing threats of violence as well as Gitz' idiosyncratic, swaying obtuseness that seems to flow to and from that. What am I reading here? VM, I suppose you could ask ArbCom whether you're allowed to say that <redacted> in public (like at the arbitration case), but as it stands, stating it declaratively like that strikes me as a WP:BLPCRIME violation of the highest order. Redacting and WP:REVDEL'ing. Please do not repeat again without ArbCom unambiguously allowing for it.

Having said and done that, I'd like not to be drawn further into this exchange. Any other admin may act as they see fit, or there can be no action — atm I've no comment, either way. I noticed this exchange in passing and felt compelled to act as I did. But I prefer that any non-urgent issues (including taking issue with anything I said or done here) be raised at the arbitration case only, though neither one of you are required to oblige me with that. To be clear: it would be appreciated, but you don't have to. Regardless, thank you both in advance for your patience. El_C 02:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@El C, do you mind elaborating a bit on "Gitz' idiosyncratic, swaying obtuseness"? Are we joking? I don't find it funny. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a joke, I found it quite challenging to follow. The sentences seemed generally convoluted and lacking in directness. But that could just be my read. And English is my second language, so who knows. Maybe to others it reads poignant and pointed. Sorry if you've taken offense, I didn't actually mean it as a slight. El_C 02:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, English is also my second language and writing in English doesn't come natural to me, so I'm sorry you didn't like my prose and you thought it lacked in directness, but it was not directed at you and you could have spared the smug in commenting it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it's OK - apologies taken. No need to reply further, best wishes, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no slight (smugness or otherwise) was intended. I hope you believe me, if not now, eventually. Anyway, sometimes I try reading stuff I've written from, say, a decade ago and it often reads a lot worse than your prose. FWIW. And I'm still not a great writer, though hopefully a bit more cogent. Thanks and I'll leave you b now. El_C 02:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've decided to accept El C’s invitation to be more straightforward and clearly state my point of view on Icewhiz. Note, however, that mine is a relatively uninformed point of view: I know little about their activities on and off Wikipedia and have not yet delved into talk page discussions.

My starting point is that indeed there is a "distortion" in most of the articles on Holocaust in Poland and Jewish/Polish relations. I knew this for a fact even before the G&K article was published, although I did not suspect the extent of the distortion. I don't know whose fault it is, nor whether the distortion is malicious and deliberate, as G&K claim, or accidental and even physiological, given the peculiarities of the Polish war experience [22] and Polish historiography and politics [23]. However, I believe that G&K are right in their assessment of the content of our articles, which do often contain errors, lack balance and are influenced by a pro-Polish (nationalist) bias. If one doesn't agree with this, what follows makes no sense.

If one accepts my starting point and acknowledges that there is a systematic bias of this kind, which for one reason or another couldn't be addressed and corrected through the usual editing process (e.g., improvements got stonewalled, consensus couldn't be reached, etc.), then one consequence follows: it was inevitable that an Icewhiz of some kind would arise sooner or later, the arch-POV-pusher ready to do anything to publish their content, heedless of any WP policy and guideline and even common decency. They'd choose the username FreeBlinkHey (Treblinka) or Book&Wall (Buchenwald) or Icewhiz (Auschwitz) or whatever, and devote their entire life to right this wrong, creating armies of sockpuppets, canvassing in and off-Wiki, doxing and threatening, bludgeoning the talk pages like mad until laptops start bleeding on their own. I myself am not Jewish, but both my father and wife are, my relatives and in-laws have been persecuted in no less than three different countries (no concentration camps, though), and I sense the power of trauma, the energy and concentration it gives you.

From the point of view of WP policies and guidelines, the issue is quite simple: users of this type are egregious POV-pushers who must be topic banned and blocked as soon as they show up. Surely Icewhiz got what they deserved and nobody can complain about it. But if WP collaborative editing doesn't work and the articles on the Holocaust are unbalanced, the arrival of Icewhiz-like monsters is inevitable. It's like when a clogged pipe bursts from water pressure – you can't blame the water. That's the reason why the lamentations "Icewhiz is a catastrophe, a scourge, one of our worst harassers, etc.", while not wrong, don't cut to the chase, and the accusation "the G&K article is copied from Icewhiz's content" doesn't persuade either. Icewhiz is the symptom, not the cause. It's not Icewhiz who created Icewhiz's content, but Icewhiz's content (the need to rebalance the area) that created the arch-POV-pusher Icewhiz. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Gitz6666,

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/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hugo Krabbe

The article Hugo Krabbe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hugo Krabbe for comments about the article, and Talk:Hugo Krabbe/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Krabbe is promoted to GA.

Dear Gitz. Hugo Krabbe is promoted to GA. Was lange währt wird endlich gut! (German proverb). Surely the longest GA Review I ever conducted. The excellent quality of your collaborative participation in this effort made it worthwhile and enjoyable. Thank you so much! Hope to meet you soon again. Bye for now, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Johannes Schade. May I say that you've been an outstanding reviewer? Thanks to your thorough analysis of the article, careful and clear explanations, great care and attention to detail, the article improved enormously and I learnt a lot in the process - which was the main puropose of my GAN. I've been very lucky to have your cooperation.

Re DYK, while I'd like more people to know about Krabbe and our good work, I don't think the article presents "a surprising or intriguing fact" or is "written for a general audience"... The only "hook" I could come up with is "Did you know that according to Hugo Krabbe, law is the only sovereign in a modern state?", which is perhaps not intriguing enough. What do you think? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gitz, I think it is in fact very good and much better than many others I have see. Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Hugo Krabbe

Hello! Your submission of Hugo Krabbe at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement

I see that you are about to submit a new evidence. I can not talk for other contributors, but can explain myself to avoid misunderstanding.

I looked at this page because I discussed a related BLP issue with François Robere a day before. If you look at my edit summary, it was that "I do not see any BLP violations or other reasons to remove this sourced content", I continued thinking about BLP policy, i.e. what is permissible, and what is not. This had nothing to do with VM.
Perhaps I misread it, but our Wikipedia:Edit warring policy says (1st phrase): An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Key word: repeatedly. That's why a single edit, even revert on the page is not an edit war. François Robere (with whom I had a disagreement) reverted my edit, but I did not revert it back. Instead, I just left this page because the dispute was too "hot" for me. I did not edit war on this page.
I doubt that bringing very old stories where people reverted edits by currently banned users (such as I.) would be helpful. You might ask Arbs if they want such evidence prior to submitting it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I asked the Arbs if that evidence is useful or not. It's not "very old", though (2019). If they allow me to submit it, I suggest you add this comment to the analysis page, possibly adding a link to that conversation with FR you've mentioned. I personally agree that your contribution was minimal. However I'd be interested to hear the ArbCom's view on the practice of "collaboratively following" VM. I don't know if there's policy on this. When the issue was raised at AE, they were very lenient. Since I think that practice is quite disruptive and seriously affects WP:CON and collaborative editing, I believe a warning would be useful and would set a clear precedent, if there are no precedents on this. But I might be wrong, the practice could be totally legit and my evidence would then provide the Arbs with an opportunity to dispel any doubt on the matter. That's why I raised the issue. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not only you bring things from 2019 that have been addressed by previous arbitration, but you bring things from 2016 that have been addressed by WP:AE. You call AE "lenient". What? Well, it is anything but that. That "evidence" brought to AE by filer was a mountain of misinterpretations, but discussing and rebutting all of them would take a life and has nothing to do with Holocaust in Poland. Admins on AE did not buy it. But whatever. This is your evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ah, OK, now I understand what you mean. It's a bit misleading on your part, though, because following VM around is an ongoing practice of yours, which maybe is entirely legit, I don't know... but now I undersrand the point about issues that have nothing to do with Poland. Fair enough Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not "my ongoing practice", you are making things up. That's the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you say so [24]. It was very tangential to the proceeding anyway. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! Then, you should also notice that the story in your evidence had happen just before the previous arbitration, and it is between the parties of the previous arbitration. Hence, bringing it would be re-negotiating the results of previous arbitration, i.e. something along the lines of the double jeopardy (i.e. VM has been already sanctioned for the old behavior that appears in your evidence). It is also important that two other participants of this exchange (the behavior by everyone was subpar) were indefinitely blocked since then, which does prove they were "not here" or something like that. In my opinion, bringing such evidence would be very much unhelpful. But again, this is your evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been accepted and published. On the Analysis page, I will explain why I believe it is relevant. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence has some obvious problems. Here is one of them. The indeffed user Tatzref made an edit that was indeed problematic, at least in one aspect. And you make it to appear as if others tried to restore his version. No, they did not. They restored other, rather different versions that incorporated only some parts of the text include by Tatzref. There are other problems with your evidence, but I would rather not say them now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Among other problems, in your evidence you essentially take the side of banned user I., trust him and justify his reverts/edits, such as [25]. Well, I did not check their discussions (tl/dr, sorry), but even I can see in this diff that the banned user removes multiple references to a book by Cambridge University Press [26], to Harvard University Press, to Financial Times, etc., while claiming in his edit summary "Remove self-published source". And any other sources do not look SPS to me. Maybe they are not great sources (I have no idea), but not SPS. And this is not all. You name someone (no, this is not me) as a participant in this edit war, while she did not; some of your diffs do not support at all your statements, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously up to arbitrators. Do they want to use the incident that has led to the previous arbitration (as I think you correctly noted), has been considered during the previous arbitration, had happen 4 years ago, and has been started by 3 contributors who are currently indeffed? In any previous arbitration that would be very much "no-no". Depending on how it will be taken, I may comment (or not) in Analysis section. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, when the evidence will be summarized I'll explain why I believe it's relevant to the case. But the diff you just shared (this} doesn't show Icewhiz removing multiple references to a book by Cambridge University Press [29], to Harvard University Press, to Financial Times, etc. In fact:

the reference to Harvard University Press (Shattered Spaces, Harvard University Press, page 52) was not removed.
Financial Times ("Poland's reclaimed properties create scars across Warsaw". Financial Times. 24 April 2018. Retrieved 2019-05-10.) is not a high quality source in this topic area (per ArbCom Sept 2019 decision) and here it was supporting the trivial and non-contentious text Decades later, reclaiming pre-war property would lead to a number of controversies, and the matter is still debated by media and scholars as of late 2010s.
the reference to Cambridge University Press (Anna Cichopek-Gajraj (19 June 2014). Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48. Cambridge University Press. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-107-03666-6.) was not removed, but the source was misrepresented:

TEXT 1 (by Tatzref and others): Impoverished claimants could however obtain exemptions from court for legal fees; financial and legal assistance was provided by various Jewish organizations.
TEXT 2 (by Icewhiz and others): The majority of Jewish claimants could not afford the restitution process without financial help due to the filing costs, legal fees, and inheritance tax.
TEXT OF THE SOURCE: Fees were also problematic and for many people became a major obstacle to property restitution. The cost of inserting the notices alone was 800 zloty (…) Hereditary taxes and lawyers’ fees had to be paid as well. (…) All together the expenses usually amounted to about 20,000 zloty (200 dollars). The majority of Jewish claimants residing in Poland could not afford to pay the fees without the help of the CKZP (which also offered free legal aid) or without obtaining an exemption form court and lawyer fees called “poor man’s benefit”

Note that I'm not claiming that editors supporting TEXT 1 were in bad faith or lacking WP:COMPETENCE and should be banned. That would be absurd. What I'm claiming - and I think this shouldn't be controversial - is that TEXT 2 was far better, both in terms of NPOV and V, and that that difference in quality between TEXT 1 and TEXT 2 was both relevant and obvious. If you doubt this, please have a look to this User:Gitz6666/ArbCom#Text_comparison. So the real question is: why was it so difficult to get TEXT 2 published? And was that difficulty in selecting the best text specific to the article History of the Jews in Poland and limited to the issue of Jewish property restitution, or was it widespread and present on other articles as well? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no doubt that the text was ultimately improved. Why it took so long and was so painful? Here is my guess: this is mostly because of three participants who were indefinitely banned later (including one who initiated this whole thing). It does not mean that all their content suggestions were bad (some were good), but the issue here is behavior. I do agree that everyone should be doing less reverts. Making only one revert to show your preferred version, as I did, would be better. But please check all my other arguments above in this thread about your evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call this the "three bad apples theory". Can we really believe it? First, one bad apple is entirely irrelevant here: Yaniv made just one revert, just like you; "antisemitic vandalism" is bad manners, let's say is a serious PA, but it doesn't explain the shambles that followed. Tatzref is defintely much more relevant, but note that they were indeff'd because of WP:OUTING, not because of tendentious or disruptive editing. And the final apple is the Big Apple, who according to VM is the Big and Sole Responsible of the Disruption of the topic area; but Icewhiz is the one who drafted the best version, the one who spotted the misrepresentation of sources, the one who filed the AE requests denouncing the disruption - so how can he be the Big Bad Apple? My theory: a group of editors were POV-pushing very badly on those pages, and "Jewish property" is paradigmatic and not exceptional. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that you want VM banned. But you are dedicating too much effort to pick up old diffs that have been already acted upon in the previous arbitration. Wait for three other parties to submit their evidence. They will probably do this just before the closing of the evidence phase to minimize chances by VM to reply with his evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be silly of them. Either they have decided not to participate in the case or they are working strenuously to gather evidence. If so, I hope they don't overdo it. It would be better if they feed the Arbs with evidence in small doses rather than choke them with a bunch of stuff! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Because we have worked ot make the evidence summary as neutral as possible, many editors have wanted the interoperation they did fully considered and so we've bee doing that by copying over to analysis. If you're not concerned about that, no need to revert. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, I thought I had made a mistake by posting it twice on two different pages - Evidence and Analysis. It's OK to have it as Analysis, I guess, so I'll self-revert. Thanks Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't seen this message yet. Thanks to you both. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: You have been added as a party

You have been added as a party to the Arbitration case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary, and can be analyzed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Analysis.

Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz, can you please explain how you decided to leave these 1 2 , and only these, notifications? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, I chose Levivich and F. Robere because they were active participants in many discussions leading up to the case, I knew (or thought I knew) that they largely agreed with the reading provided by G&K in their paper, and might be interested in presenting the paper, or parts of it, as evidence. Therefore I thought they might be particularly interested in knowing that ArbCom will not consider claims that were not submitted as evidence.

Was that improper? I thought not because "Evidence phase 1" at ArbCom is not a consensus-making process: the final decision will be taken by Arbs, and while they are gathering evidence, the more they get, the better. This was my reasoning because in the only case filed at AE against me, this one in July 2022, Volunteer Marek made a statement (this one) in which he pinged six editors who had recently expressed negative views on my editing during an ANI discussion (this one). Those editors were selected precisely on that basis - those who expressed a positive opinion were not pinged. The ping was probably effective, since one of the six pinged editors (Elinruby) apparently responded by posting a statement about the case, which was very negative toward me. I reacted to VM's statement by invoking WP:CANVASS multiple times (e.g. [27], [28], [29], and final statement VM has been unashamedly WP:CANVASSing here below) but no admin at AE made any comment on this. Therefore I thought I was wrong and VM was right: AE requests are not community discussions where WP:CANVASS applies because the final decision is not based on community consensus but is made by admins alone. This is the reason I gave myself to explain why AE admins did not react to that apparent, highly visible canvass and to my repeated protests.

In fact, very recently I made the same point at AE (request against Michael60634): GizzyCatBella was invoking WP:CANVASS, and I told her in my statement: I think you're wrong because this is not a community discussion and the final decision will be taken by admins. If you're right, however, then VM would have made the most blatant canvass in his statement at AE when he selectively pinged six editors who had criticised me during a previous discussion at AN/I (here).

If I was wrong in believing that WP:CANVASS does not apply to the collection of evidence in AE/ArbCom cases, since they are not consensus decision-making process[es] per WP:CANVASS, please AGF and consider that I have been actively editing in this project for a little over a year (January 2022) and was misled by the inexplicable lack of reaction from admins when Volunteer Marek behaved as he did at AE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the AE you mention I did not “ping” editors. I quoted six editors and linked their usernames, which is normal procedure. IF I had gone to their individual talk pages, as you did here, and informed them of the AE then you’d have a point. But I didn’t. So your claims about “VM made the most blatant canvass” are absurd and really look like some deflection and whataboutism from your own problematic actions. Volunteer Marek 04:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any relevant difference. In both cases, editors get a notification. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you had mentioned FR in your comment or evidence and linked their username, nobody would care, I don’t think. But that’s not what you did. Volunteer Marek 07:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So had I replied "Wow, Wugapodes, that's interesting, I wonder whether User:X, Y, Z know that", and had selected X, Y, Z on the basis of their views on the paper, that would have been OK, while posting on XYZ's talk pages is not OK. Well, if you are right, I don't really understand the rationale of it. Do you?
Besides, the text of the policy doesn't support this distinction: it speaks comprehensively of "notifications", and mentioning someone is a kind of notification according to Help:Notifications and to common sense. The relevant section in this case seems to be WP:VOTESTACK, which mentions RFC, AFD or CFD; I doubt AE and ArbCom cases are consensus decision-making process[es] of the same kind as RFC, AFD and CFD.
Finally, WP:CONEXCEPT explicitly qualifies decisions made by the Arbitration Committee as "Decisions not subject to consensus of editors", which arguably implies that WP:CANVASS does not apply to them. I imagine that also AE decisions are decisions not subject to consensus of editors, to which WP:CANVASS doesn't apply.

That's probably the reason why you could select and ping six editors at AE scot-free, @Volunteer Marek. Anyway, I imagine this is not an unprecedented issue and Barkeep49 will let us know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I think. "I didn't like it when Editor Foo did it but since they were allowed to do it, I'm going to do it also" is not a very convincing argument for me. As for the other rationales, it is true that "ArbCom is not a consensus-making process" but it's also true that ArbCom's process depends on community participation and so this does, in my individual opinion, fail the canvassing standard of don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. I also was surprised to see Volunteer Marek so eager to re-litigate whether or not what he did at AE was appropriate here. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to butt in here just to say this: if other parties can work together on preparing evidence (which has been happening and is not unusual), why can't Gitz and I work together on preparing evidence? To be clear, I am not preparing any evidence, so this is purely academic, but I don't see how one party can canvass another party to the case they're both parties in. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add, "I thought it was allowed because someone else was allowed to do it over my objection" is convincing for me. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Barkeep49, but my point is not normative, "since Editor Foo was allowed to do it, then I should also be allowed to do it". My point is cognitive, "since Editor Foo was allowed to do it, I honestly believed that that was permissible". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hugo Krabbe

On 28 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hugo Krabbe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hugo Krabbe stirred up much controversy in the interwar period by arguing that the law, not the state, is the true sovereign? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hugo Krabbe. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hugo Krabbe), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

In your recent submission ("involves Piotus"). Thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Fixed Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote on Polish nationalism

Some are actually pro-Russia, possibly because of panslavism and anti-EU/anti-liberal sentiments. See ex. this, this or this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but not the mainstream, so to say, not Law and Justice. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I don't even know if one could call them "Polish nationalists". They are rather pan-Slavic nationalists or pro-Russia supporters with Polish nationality. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed re first point, I'd need to read more regarding the second. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cause or consequence?

Re: this. The thing is, was Icewhiz's radicalization the cause or the consequence? This I think was his first comment in this topic area, and I think it shows very strong bias/attitude that he never climbed down from, but just kept embracing more and more. IMHO it was his very strong bias that he refused to moderate and that impacted his WP:AGF that led to the deterioration of this topic area, not anything he encountered there. That area was relatively stable and friendly (collaborative) before, but he polarized it into two sides. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Piotrus, you are probably right when you say that Icewhiz has been divisive and polarising in the topic area. I cannot comment on his attitudes and behaviour (and perhaps I shouldn’t, since he cannot be part of this conversation), but I too am of the opinion that he had an agenda. Given that his psychology is inscrutable and probably irrelevant, the question for me is: was his agenda mainstream or fringe? Let's assume the diff you shared is Icewhiz's "first comment in this topic area" and let's take a look at the AfD he is commenting on.

You had nominated Szczuczyn pogrom for deletion and were arguing that there had been some non-notable killings of Jews in Szczuczyn but that the "claims about a wider pogrom (100 deaths)" were not supported by RSs. You had pinged Poeticbent, who also !voted "delete". Icewhiz !voted "Strong keep". What do the sources say?

The sources

According to Yad Vashem [30], in Szczuczyn,
The Soviets withdrew, and for about two weeks, there was no real government in the town. On June 28, 1941, Poles murdered with cold weapons about 300 Jews in the town, members of entire families, mostly wealthy and educated Jews, and threw the dead into anti-tank ditches near the town. Following the arrival of German soldiers in the town, the murder was stopped
According to Yad Vashem's Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before and During the Holocaust [31] says:
After two years of Soviet rule, the Germans bypassed the town in June 1941, leaving the Jews in Polish hands. Three hundreds were murdered in a brutal massacre by axe-wielding mobs on 28 June. Another 100 were executed on 24 July
According to the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, vol. II, A, p. 968:
On June 27– 28, 1941, Kosmowski, his two brothers, and Peniuk organized a pogrom in which about 200 Poles plundered the houses of the richest Jewish families and brutally murdered 300 to 400 Jews.4 The local priest and Polish intellectuals refused to intervene in the violence. The arrival the next evening of 30 Wehrmacht soldiers enabled Jewish women to pay the unit commander soap and coffee to patrol Szczuczyn to end the collaborators’ attacks

My point is not "Icewhiz was right, you were wrong, ah ah", which would be simply silly: we have community discussions precisely for raising doubts like yours and and find the best solution by exchanging arguments and sources. My point is twofold:

Given the topic of AfD, we can sympathise with Icewhiz and try to understand how stressful it must have been to participate in that discussion. For Icewhiz and anyone who knew that that information about the pogrom was verifiable and accurate, it must have been difficult to participate in that discussion without starting to harbour some animosity towards you and Poeticbent. Besides, unless Icewhiz was relying on a very specialised and comprehensive archive, he must have spent hours searching for sources (from 09:31 to 13:35?).
Icewhiz's agenda was "mainstream", not "fringe". This implies that the argumentum ad Icewhiz ("if Icewhiz said this, it must be wrong", "this is what Icewhiz would want us to do", etc.) is widespread but fallacious. It is possible that knowing the truth and not being able to make it prevail without interminable and painful discussions, in two years has burnt him out, making him a kind of Cassandra turned to the past. Which means: it's not Icewhiz who created Icewhiz's content, but Icewhiz's content (the need to rebalance/correct the topic area) that created the arch-POV-pusher Icewhiz. Which means: Icewhiz's radicalization was the consequence and not the cause.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Few comments to this. First, I never said that all Icewhiz done was wrong. He made some constructive edits, and that includes rescuing the Szczuczyn pogrom article, for which my WP:BEFORE was not good enough. Second, are you implying that some individuals are not mentally strong enough to edit a particular topic arena? Which, actually, makes a lot of sense - editing about tragedies and likewise depressing topics takes a mental toll. That's obvious even in my case - spending few years in related topics was hard on me, and I am very much enjoying not editing much in this topic area these days. The problem is how one deals with such feelings or attitudes. Most other editors, including myself, leave the topic area or limit their activity in it, but don't degenerate into harassment and a crusade to destroy those they have some grieviances against. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

are you implying that some individuals are not mentally strong enough to edit a particular topic arena? Yes, but it shouldn't be like that. Actually if everybody respected WP:CIV and EW no topic area would be too tough. But that's why editors like you shouldn't leave the topic area. Especially when the topic is contentious, it is vital that editors are polite, ready to work toward consensus and change their views when they are proven wrong; editors should at least strive to be neutral and to look for the best available sources; tendentious and nationalist editing should not be tolerated. AFIK you are a good editor and the topic area would be worse without you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. Not sure to what degree you can make them at ArbCom, but please note I just submitted something about you (positive). Whether the arbitrators accept it or not, I don't know. Btw, nitpicking: your section "Glaukopis (2022 and 2023)" - shouldn't it be 2021, not 2022? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Piotrus, you are right. I'll correct the error immediately. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quote source?

Hello Gitz6666,

in Special:Diff/1150888484 (still present unmodifiedly as far as I can see), you quoted My very best wishes as "describ[ing] the Russian world as a 'shithole full of zombies'".

This quote is now being disputed, so it would be helpful to have a source. Could you point out where exactly My very best wishes did this?

Thank you very much in advance and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misunderstanding. My concern was not so much about translation as about the overall statement by Gitz in this diff. If you think it was OK, then let's keep it, I have thick skin. While I did not say exactly that, such interpretation by Gitz is not unreasonable. Both "shithole" (a reference to well know statement by Putin, see ru:Мочить в сортире), and "Zombies" were present in the text, although not in the same phrase. I do not think Gitz needs to explain translation. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ToBeFree, I've already provided the diff in my comment at 00:27, 20 April 2023, and it is this one: Special:Diff/1075586711. You'll find a poem (in Russian) on the Russian world (Русский мир) being a "latrine" (сортир) and an "army of slaves, zombies, brainless vatniks" (армия рабов, Зомби, ватников безмозглых). I've already raised the issue of MVBW's hateful posts here and here, which were followed by a discussion on my talk page with MVBW, this one. May I ask, where is the quote being disputed? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the discussion in the last link provided by Gitz [32] explains it. Whatever. I do not really care. My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps MVBW could improve the quality of my translation - I spoke Russian when I was 11 years old, but now it has been largely forgotten and, besides, I do not have their poetic touch. How would you translate cортир, MVBW: "latrine" or "shithole"? and what about the армия рабов, Зомби, ватников безмозглых, "an army of slaves, zombies, brainless vatniks - is there a decent English translation for vatnik? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to know that MVBW has a "thick skin" and doesn't "really care", but I wonder why they think that other people should have a skin as thick as theirs and show the same degree of indifference at being called brainless zombies who live in a latine. I think it is disgraceful that an editor active in the EE area, who constantly edits on Russian politics, feels free to use their user page to publish (in Russian!) insults aimed at the Russian people. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarification and sorry, I hadn't seen a connection between the diff and the quote. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re to this. Being a party of a case does not mean you should bring issues unrelated to the case, but covered by your topic ban. I commented what was the problem, but you doubled down. My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes, I replied to this line argument - "out of scope" - here. By the way, may I ask, did you complain about my comment on your Russian shitholes publicly or via email? I couldn't find your remarks. Thanks for letting me know, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. I am done with this case. No, I do not use email or any other off-wiki communications for a simple reason: I do not care, and I have more important things to do in real life. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So when ToBeFree said This quote is now being disputed, he was not implying that the quote was disputed by you, right? Do you happen to know who was disputing it and where did this discussion take place? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you provide a quote somewhere, i.e. "...", this suppose to be exact quote. That was NOT a quote of something I wrote. That was your own interpretation, which would be fine, but you posted it on Arbitration pages, along with other doubtful claims (e.g. G&K did not say that "User MVBW is a distortionist" in their article, this is your (mis)interpretation again, etc.), with intention to get other users sanctioned. I had hoped you understood my explanation [33], but you apparently did not. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to answer my questions - where did you complain about my comment, what did you say about it? - is no big deal, but I don't understand why, if you do answer, you don't provide the information I asked for and instead falsely claim that my quotes are inaccurate. What I said at ArbCom is that it's damaging that an editor with these views spends most of their time on Wikipedia editing on Russian politics - and on reflection you yourself are aware that you shouldn't work on these topics because you are not objective and detached enough. Let me just give you an advice: you should care a little bit more. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, my comments that you repeatedly remove [34] were merely an honest answer to the essence of your questions and concerns. It was you who raised these question here on talk, and on arbitration pages, and your "pinged" me. But if you do not want to talk with me, that's fine.Then I will not talk with you. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My questions and concerns (still unanswered) were may I ask, did you complain about my comment on your Russian shitholes publicly or via email? I couldn't find your remarks. Thanks for letting me know and where did you complain about my comment, what did you say about it? That's it, you can answer or not, as you wish, but please refrain from WP:GOADing, as I've asked you more than once [35][36]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue to ask... I already replied "no" to your question above (i.e., no, I am not using email or any other off-wiki communications in the project). And indeed, I am not going to say more because you distort the conversation by editing it, e.g. you made a response by another user to my comment appear as response to your comment, etc. [37]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think ToBeFree was actually replying to me and thanking me for the clarification. I removed your comment for the reason I've explained to you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both the original and the current indentation correctly indicate a reply to Gitz6666, although I had intentionally used a level of indentation that made clear I was answering their 22:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC) message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify this issue, I criticized two things in my little poem: (a) the misconduct by Russian army during the war ("это армия рабов, Зомби, ватников безмозглых"), and (b) a well known statement by Putin (ru:Мочить в сортире) where he justified the Second Chechen war and advocated extermination of ethnic minorities ("Приведут тебя в сортир И замочат в том сортире."). I do not see anything problematic with having such opinion, and believe that your posting, Gitz6666, on arbitration page was a misinterpretation of my text, along with misquote. However, since this is not relevant to the arbitration case, I do not care too much about it, so whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Objective idealism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bernard Bosanquet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Alfred Verdross is a very good article. Great work! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.
This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.
Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:
All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
François Robere is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
My very best wishes
- is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Volunteer Marek
- is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- is limited to 1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert, except for edits in his userspace or obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
François Robere and Volunteer Marek are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, posts and comments made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
The Arbitration Committee assumes and makes indefinite the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Piotrus is reminded that while off-wiki communication is allowed in most circumstances, he has previously used off-wiki communication disruptively. He is reminded to be cautious about how and when to use off-wiki contact in the future, and to avoid future conflict, he should prioritize on-wiki communication.
The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends this provision to that topic area. It does so by adding the following text in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe:
As an alternative to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
The Arbitration Committee separately rescinds the part of the January 2022 motion allowing transfer of a case from Arbitration Enforcement to ARCA, in recognition of the now-standard provision in Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee. It does so by striking the following text in its entirety in item number 7:
In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.
[archive / log]
When considering sanctions against editors in the Eastern Europe topic area, uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.

Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

Monumental

This was an act of Divine Grace.[38] I wanted to wait until the case was over before commenting. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Adoring nanny for the kind comment, but honestly that was my position from the very beginning, e.g. here ("topic bans would still be ... too harsh: less restrictive measure are at hand, and there is no need to completely renounce the contribution of experienced users"), so more than Divine Grace I'd say consistency. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alfred Verdross

On 31 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Verdross, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the 1930s Alfred Verdross, an Austrian international lawyer and future judge of the European Court of Human Rights, sympathised with National Socialism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Verdross. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alfred Verdross), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao

Mentre transitavo tra Alfa Centauri A e B ho inavvertitamente colpito col gomito il telescopio che ha puntato wp.it e che ho visto? Sei stato bannato un'altra volta!? Ti auguro coraggio e buon lavoro qui. Tytire (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ho letto il brief sul Signpost. (...). Non riesco a trovare il giusto processo. Devo dedurre che sei stato vittima di giustizia sommaria? Tytire (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ciao, @Tytire, giustizia sommaria e fulminante: un m:Global lock, sanzione terribile e totale di cui persino ignoravo l'esistenza. Ieri però gli steward hanno accolto il mio appello e ora sono "sgloccato" (non su it.wiki però, su it.wiki mi sparano a vista). Spero che le tue traiettorie ti riportino su it.wiki prima o poi. Non lo sanno, ma hanno tanto bisogno di te. Ciao Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non ho altrettanto tempo quanto prima. Mi sembra anche che ci sia una buona probabilità che gli argomenti che mi interessano fra dieci anni potrebbero essere in gran misura ancora nello stato attuale (salvo passaggio di qualche viaggiatore extra-galattico). L'ipotesi, e il livello di coproduzione effettivamente trovato, diluiscono la forza gravitazionale di it.wiki. Tytire (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allora, se cerchi una massa gravitazionale più consistente, permettimi di ricordarti che su Collaboration with the Axis powers non c'è ancora una sezione sulla collaborazione della RSI con la Germania nazista e che mancano molte informazioni importanti dalla voce Italian Social Republic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ho dato un'occhiata alla RSI. E' in gran parte basata sul vecchio Mack Smith, poi fonti primarie, prevalenza di storia militare...che fatica da fare se uno volesse metterci le mani. :-) Tytire (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immagino. Mille visualizzazione al giorno, ogni anno più di 300.000 persone imparano qualcosa sulla RSI da questa voce. Che non menziona nemmeno le deportazioni degli ebrei (per dirne una). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back?

Never followed the particulars (except the article) but nice to see you back. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Marcelus (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Thank you very much for your dedication to Hugo Krabbe! I'm not sure if I would've investigated the philosopher further when I first stumbled on his name, if the great page you created (was it 15 Feb 2022?) hadn't piqued my interest.

Incidentally: I hope to make some contributions to philosophy of law articles myself at some point, if you ever want to collaborate. §§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 16:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar, LegesFundamentales, that's much appreciated. Yes, Philosophy of law is an area I'm interested in, so I'll be happy to collaborate with you if you want to publish on one of the subjects I found listed on your user page - it's surprising that we still don't have an article on treaty making power, judicial authority, constitutional identity, etc. I've recently published an article on Alfred Verdross you might be interested in and I'm looking forward to publishing an article on Santi Romano - still missing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

Hi Gitz6666,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 02:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Czar, thank you for your message - I added the noticeboard to my watchlist. I don't know if you or your project can help, but in the future I'd like to expand the article on Victor Serge, who was active as anarchist in the early part of his life (he directed L'Anarchie and was convicted in the trial against the Bonnot Gang), before turning to bolshevism and joining the Russian revolution. Serge is a very interesting figure and the state of our article on him is very bad compared to the corresponsing articles on other projects (fr.wiki, de.wiki, ru.wiki, it.wiki...).

I decided to translate the fr.wiki article on Jean-Jacques Liabeuf because I read about Liabeuf in Serge's Memoirs of a Revolutionary, 1901–1941. Since English is not my mother tongue, I think that translation needs some proofreading.

By the way, I noticed in your project's homepage a link to the related project on the Italian Wikipedia "Anarchia". Unfortuntetely that project has been inactive since 2015 [39]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you need help with sources for Serge, the Anarchism noticeboard is a great place to ask! Also a good place to request a copyedit. There are a bunch of great sources already in the Serge article so it looks like the work is mainly in rebuilding the article from reliable, secondary sources. And yes, some of the project links are old as they're mainly there for information. Sometimes editors from other language Wikipedias come to the English WikiProject for Anarchism to get help. Happy editing! czar 13:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Alfred Verdross

The article Alfred Verdross you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alfred Verdross for comments about the article, and Talk:Alfred Verdross/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fundacja Leonarda da Vinci

Yo. In random news, pl:Fundacja Leonarda da Vinci is about to be deleted from pl wiki, it has no interwikis, my BEFORE did not yield anything. Anything you see in Italian soruces, if you care, to suggest it may be notable and/or add interwiki, if it exists on it/en wiki? Pl article is not even providing the Italian name... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Piotrus! I had a look around but I'm not sure I understand what the subject is about:

First of all, the subject is not the "Fondazione Leonardo - Civiltà delle Macchine", founded in 2019 and based in Rome. It is described here by the Corriere della Sera and here on the website of the journal it:Civilità delle macchine (which was very important in Italian political and literary culture in the 1950s and is now funded by the "Fondazione Leonardo - Civiltà delle Macchine"). This is a prominent, active and IMHO notable foundation, chaired by Luciano Violante. The Italian Wikipedia does not have an article on them, but given their very strict standard of notability, that's hardly relevant.
Then we have the "Fondazione Leonardo Da Vinci" based in Milan - this is their website and this is a self-published leaflet in English. Browsing on the internet it's very difficult for me to say whether they are notable - probably not.
The article on pl.wiki, however, is about something else: "A foundation financing the activities of the Giunti publishing house in the sphere of the program of the National Edition of Leonardo da Vinci's Manuscripts and Drawings thanks to research scholarships received from the Museum and the Institute of Science in Florence. The headquarters of the foundation is Florence" (Google translation). So they would be funding this National Edition (here on the Italian OPAC), but they are not mentioned. The article on pl.wiki is not a hoax, though: in the 1970s there was a "Fondazione Leonardo Da Vinci", which published a "Bollettino della Fondazione Leonardo da Vinci" and co-published books with Giunti, e.g. this one and this one, more here. Maybe they were important in their time, but tht was the pre-internet era and I can't find much information about them online. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll report your findings to pl wiki. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Can you elaborate on "given their very strict standard of notability"? Is it wiki's equivalent of GNG and/or practices more strict then en? I find pl wiki somewhat more lenient than what we see on en. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, their GNG is stricter: notability must be "objective, clearly visible, on a large-scale and verifiable by means of third-party sources". As a general rule, the importance of the subject must be "at least at national level" and "notability must be evident from the content of the entry itself, not from research outside Wikipedia" (if I'm not mistaken, this is the opposite of WP:ARTN). Besides, apart from the wording of the guidelines, the way they are applied is extremely restrictive, e.g. it.wiki deleted Gender bias on Wikipedia, Ideological bias on Wikipedia, 2013 Italian social protests, Salvatore Aranzulla (which caused much controversy as you can read in here), Cesare Casadei, Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield and many more. Actually they have deleted hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles whose notability is undisputed on en.wiki because they want the subject to be "remarkable" rather than notable - regardless of coverage in RS, they want it to be "one of a kind", standing out from the average, so to speak. If I'm not mistaken (which I might be), it.wiki is the most deletionist wikipedia in the world. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Meanwhile, someone is cleanup up (nominating for AfD) a bunch of da Vinci related articles on pl wiki. In case you care about this (I do, mildly), check pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:09:20:Centrum Studiów nad Leonardem da Vinci (in US), pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:09:20:Centrum Badań nad Leonardem da Vinci (in Italy), pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:09:20:Komisja Leonarda da Vinci (also in Italy). I commented on one, running out of time to dig for info on the Italian ones... no interwikis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. And by interesting I mean very interesting :) I need to think more about it, but it is related a bit to my research interests. Research question on why it evolved into being so deletionist would be fun to answer. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is an interesting question. As for it.wiki, I have anecdotal evidence but no research hypotheses as to why it evolved into being so deletionist. It could also be a coincidence: out of 300+ language editions, some might be expected to adopt more or less extreme forms of deletionism or inclusion. I wonder about the consequences of extreme approaches for the growth of the encyclopaedia, its quality, the number of edits, the number of active editors, etc. This would also be an interesting research question for a Wikipedian with a sociological bent. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another anecdote about deletionism on it.wiki. The article 2023 Venice bus crash appears on 15 wikipedias but not on it.wiki - on it.wiki there is a draft. An admin repeatedly prevented the creation of an article on the subject for the following reason: "Premature article for an encyclopaedia (which is not a news magazine): at the moment it is a news article. When there will be more reliable data and official findings on causes, dynamics, etc., we will be able to talk about it". Everybody accepted this decision. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I call pl wiki inclusionist but there are weird exceptions. Pl wiki is not very fond of some topics (recent events, including in Poland, with strong faction saying this stuff belongs in wikinews, not wikipedia), and it had deleted a ton of unfinished "COVID in Fooland" articles for example saying they are unfinished (a weird argument not supported by any policy I know, but clearly supported by majority of voters...). Shrug.

Btw, I think in the long run we will have to merge all different language projects. But it will be opposed by the community a lot. So we will see an era of third party tools (forks) that do so, using AI translation. Readers don't care for different languages, most folks these days machine translate everything. I see this in my students who often are confused about why there are different language wikis (they run broswer extensions that machine translate every page they see). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I suspect that active editors of a non-English wiki would never abandon their home project to merge into a global, all-encompassing English Wiki. They often take special pride in their own project's achievements, which in certain areas may indeed be remarkable. Besides, since every Wiki is based on a slightly different set of sources, reflecting the culture and values of the underlying linguistic community, their content is bound to differ: I don't expect the Polish and Latvian Wikis, or the Polish and Russian or Ukrainian Wikis, to give identical accounts of the same historical events. But I agree with you: readers can get a decent translation of any text, and in the long run that will have consequences on how sources are selected and text written. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Theres confusion on the Assange talk page and we disagree, but I want to thank you for trying and agreeing to a second RFC

Sometimes I have trouble explaining and when I try it can seem like an argument to people. I hope I get better at not confusing you about what I think Softlem (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Softlem, I think I got your point. You're right, there's some confusion on that talk page, but I don't see any bitter conflict. As for a second RFC on dropped vs discontinued, you are free to open it if you think it's worth it. In my view, it's a waste of time because the distinction is purely stylistic, neither "dropped" not "discontinued" would unbalance the article, so I don't think we should spend any more energy on that. But do as you please. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]