User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2009/September

Help Please, on Chodaczkow Wielki massacre
I know you're busy, but this shouldn't take too much time. Tymek has already supported me there, perhaps you can offer your opinion. Someone keeps trying to insert info from non-reliable sources. Could you check out the talk page and offer your opinion? Thanks!Faustian (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * O co chodzi? Komański i Siekierka nie są wiarygodnym źródłem? Nawet ZUwP nie protestowało przy ich książkach. Motyka w Ukraińskiej Partyzantce daje kilka przypisów do ich książki. Nie może tak być że nie wygodne fakty dla Ukraińców są komentowane jako nierzetelne książki. Siemaszkowie nie, Siekierka nie, Filar nie itd itd to na czym mamy opierać opisywanie faktów? Czytałeś choć fragmenty ich książki?--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you correct me. Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation
Dear Radeksz, can you provide the translation? AdjustShift (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles
I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. You have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome
I only wrote what was true. :-) — Malik Shabazz 19:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I e-mailed you
Best,Faustian (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Motyka
Hi m8, 181, 385.--Paweł5586 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you correct my new article--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why Tymek was blocked?--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I one more question, could you place my 2 articles in did you know - Bohdan Koziy and Parośla I massacre? I dont know how exactly it works.--Paweł5586 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't nominate these because they're not adequately cited. Also, it'd probably be good if you figured out how to nominate articles for DYK yourself for future use.radek (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
If you really want to evaluate changes to an article, you should read the source left  If you really care about getting things right you will see that the source shows the article needs massive updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumon24 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the article looks odd to still devote so much space to a hypothesis that was thrown away. The article should be updated to reflect it purely historical (reduced) value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumon24 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay that sounds reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumon24 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
A mediation case has been opened regarding the Polish-Ukranian WWII dispute. I have picked up that case. Here's the link:

Polish-Ukranian WWII disputes.

If you choose not to participate, please tell me on my talk page. Thanks! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest Dept
Just a brief note to remind all entrants that, under the new arrangements, they are encouraged to self-score (but not self-assess) their own entries.

There's also a discussion about a new points scale over on the Coordinators talk page. This deals with some of the anomalies raised elsewhere and as ever comments there would be very welcome. Roger Davies talk 13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for evidence timeline extension
Please see my reply here.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please comment here
User:Piotrus/ArbCom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting
Regarding your question in your edit summary, there is a good case to be made that Vecrumba is User:84.65.174.113 and User:84.68.27.75. LokiiT (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba resides very far from there. If it makes a good case, what would make a poor case, Krawndawg? Colchicum (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a Proxy is? Moreover, are you aware that people sometimes go on business trips/vacations to other countries? The location of an IP proves nothing. The activity is highly suspicious. And what does my former account have to do with this discussion? That account was discovered by accident when someone accused me of being someone else's sockpuppet, so yeah, this does make a better case. LokiiT (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LokiiT, either file a Checkuser request or stop making baseless accusations.radek (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you mind your own business and stop acting like you're some sort of authority. Please and thanks. I'm not out to get people, so if he is socking, I have given him a chance to stop. If he continues, it will be obvious and I will report it. And if he's not socking at all, I have simply made a mistake and no harm has been done. But again, this is none of your business so I ask you to please keep your nose out of conflicts that do not involve you.LokiiT (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Making false accusations of sock puppeting is serious business and generally lowers the level of discussion on Wikipedia. Also, because this is an article I am involved in, this is certainly my business.radek (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you report me if it's such a serious matter. The thought just occurred to me, you seem pretty darn sure of yourself that these suspicious one-time-use IPs don't belong to him. Yet it's obvious that they belong to someone involved in that article's dispute. Is there anything you aren't sharing here? One way or another I think it's important to find out who's using anonymous IPs to revert war. LokiiT (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you making yet another baseless accusation?radek (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. But do you not agree that this IP activity is suspicious? It has many hallmarks of an IP sock. Signs_of_sock_puppetry - Precocious edit histories (note the edit summaries), Editing identical articles, Edit warring, Single-purpose accounts (Note they only have 1-2 edits each, and both the exact same edit) etc.. You cannot credibly claim this is baseless. LokiiT (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement "you seem pretty darn sure of yourself" and the question "Is there anything you aren't sharing here?" both imply that you are making an accusation. A clearly worded retraction is in order.radek (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't implying anything. I was bluntly asking why you are so sure of yourself that he's not socking when it's pretty clear that someone is. Do you have any information regarding these anonymous IPs? If not, consider this discussion over. LokiiT (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also wonder who User:Sbw01f was. Was not he some how related to you, LokiiT? Biophys (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) Sadly, LokiiT, I have been looking after my elderly mother who has had a decline in health and has been in nursing home care for several months now and have not left Brooklyn (that would be U.S., not U.K.) for some time. This attack certainly speaks to your editorial character or lack thereof, particularly as you have not contacted me prior or subsequent to your accusation here. This would be little more than another behind-the-back stab-in-the-back personal attack used to push personal agendas and POVs. Lastly, my experience in these things has been that people accuse editors of things they do themselves. Oops! Appears to be the case. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Reverting an edit which clearly mischaracterizes a recounting of content as someone's personal opinion is hardly "exact same edit." You push a POV, you get reverted, that's how it works. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So with these new developments, of which all three of you are involved in, how about an apology and admittance that these mysterious IPs did originate from your cabal, which was never a doubt of mine in the first place?

Here's a quote from someone who has read this email archive: "''Let's get one thing clear: this list is real, and the amount of incriminating material is breathtakingly overwhelming and thickly spread, so much so that despite the huge size of the archive evidence of gross misconduct is obscenely easy to spot. For instance, in the threads entitled "[WPM] [WMP] Molobo ban" (early days of June), it is revealed that Piotrus, Radek, Biophys and others knew and encouraged Molobo's recent socking (for which he was banned for a year by User:Avraham), conspired more puppetry, pondered how to avoid detection in future, and advocated use of proxies. Other such activities are easy to spot. Conspiring to harass and edit-war is so rampant throughout the archive that ironing out the details is almost pointless, and using this User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/North-East Europe AE threads along with the archive saves very little time." LokiiT (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lokii, nobody on the list, AFAIK (with the possible exception of Molobo for which he was already busted) ever used sockpuppets. As I've stated on the relevant pages, you can check user me up, down, left, right, east, west, north, south and in whatever other way there is. I've simply never used sock puppets and I seriously doubt anyone else did either. Deacon is either lying through his teeth or he's looking at some seriously faked emails. Would you yourself be willing to get yourself check usered? No apologies from me here.radek (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And btw, the discussions about sock puppetry that took place on the list where about how to detect sock puppetry so that these users can be reported.radek (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A usercheck does nothing in determining who's using a proxy. It would be impossible to physically prove without a doubt that a proxy is a specific user (or someone using a school/library/friend's computer or someone stealing wireless internet etc.. there are numerous ways), but that's where common sense comes in. An admin does not need physical proof or a usercheck to block someone for IP/Proxy socking. How can you possibly maintain that these one-use IPs who came to your/vecrumba's rescue, along with other IPs shown at the evidence page in similar situations are just complete coincidence? Even after this outing? That is what you're implying, right? LokiiT (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're basing your accusations on stuff that Deacon is making up. Nobody on the list used sock puppets and general consensus was that aside from its ethical problems, the usage of sock puppets is pretty stupid. I have no idea who these IPs are - anon users edit articles all the time. On the other hand, I believe you yourself do have a history in this regard, am I right?radek (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that it's all a big lie, and that this was indeed just a coincidence, as were other similar incidences? Alright, that's all I wanted to hear. And given that you obviously already know about my previous ban for sock puppetting, which was already brought up in this discussion in a similarly inflammatory manner, I'll ask you kindly, and only once, that you refrain from making any further inflammatory inquiries in an attempt to get a reaction out of me and shift focus away from the topic at hand. This isn't about me. If you wish to discuss my previous history with sockpuppeting, for whatever reason, please feel free to post your inquiries on my talk page, or you may email me. That said, you've yet to say anything to put so much as a single doubt in my head as to where these IPs originated from. The only cause for my reluctance to report them is that it's not clear to me which specific user they are, and it would be impossible to prove if they are indeed proxies, therefore it would likely result in no action being taken on technical grounds. However, I have a feeling that this will all be irrelevant once this arbcom case is concluded, so I won't be losing any sleep over it. LokiiT (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WT:ECON
Hi, I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Bund on Wikipedia" Project
Hello,

Are you interested in participating in the "The Bund on Wikipedia" Project? If so, please join the Task Force. For more information, please visit our website: bundwiki.weebly.com. Thanks.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to see that you added your name to the "Participants" list. Are you familiar with the Bund? Do you have any specific interests?--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

On slander right on ArbCom's watch and my example of swamped AFDs
Your accusations against me at ArbCom are really false, and just empty mudslinging. Everything will be checked carefully – so I recommend you withdraw. As regards the AFD example for Neo-Stalinism, I meant the Category:Neo-Stalinism, not the article that GCarty made. See the CFD right here:. I changed the name to swamped AFDs/CFDs to accommodate this.

Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I very much hope that everything is checked carefully. I hope the ArbCom members actually bother to follow the links I provided (which you neglected to provide) and see for themselves. I know it may be some work but I'm sure that if this is done your manipulations of the facts will become pretty self evident. And it's not my fault you confused an article with a category. And still, everyone (by that I mean all the editors not on the list + myself who took part) voted against you. At some point repeatedly trying to bring cats/articles for deletion against clear consensus becomes disruptive. Radeksz

RFC on Nortom publishing
Please comment here if you have time.Faustian (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)