Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was 8 Userfy, 20 DELETE. Moved to User:Halibutt/Black Book per first userfy vote. If Halibutt doesn't want it, he is free to mark it for speedy deletion or give it to someone else. Nohat 22:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book
Voting summary: Oppose/Keep: 6; Userfy: 10; Delete: 20 Nohat 17:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In a staggering display of anti-Polish sentiment, 83% vote for the page to be removed from the Wikipedia namespace, out of which 66% vote to delete it altogether. --Thorsten1 22:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am fairly sure you are being sarcastic about "anti-Polish sentiment" in this case, but it is still interesting to me that there is strong majority to keep How to deal with Poles in its RFD. Dragons flight 22:53, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose there are two main reasons for the "keep" majority. For all I know, Metawiki is not anywhere near as popular as Wikipedia itself, so less people tend to pay attention to what's going on there in the first place, and even those who do are less inclined to get involved in a row, because it "matters less" - admittedly, that would include me. Another reason might be that How to deal with Poles passes as self-ironic Polish humour on Poles, even when its real subject are non-Poles. Needless to say, you were right about my being sarcastic. :-) --Thorsten1 07:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there are complaints about someone's behaviour, take it to RFC. --W(t) 23:47, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)


 * Oppose The very point of that archive is to avoid starting the painful RFC, AtbCom or any other process. As a part of the Polish wikipedians' notice board, this place is intended as an archive of disputes, where other contributors (in most cases without much consideration or conscience, I believe), accuse people of nationalism or bias solely because they are Poles. While such behaviour surely deserves RFC, we decided that trying to talk things over before we start listing all the wrongdoings, gathering support and all that, would be much better. Also, if the disputed part is unrelated with the dispute itself (that is if the nationalist remarks are not relevant to article content disputes, then it would be much better to keep it out of the talk pages. Finally, as the recent problem with Nohat showed, taking such things to user talk pages doesn't work since in most cases such remarks are either treated as offensive or simply erased, without comment. Halibutt 23:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:Halibutt/Black Book and delete redirect from project space. Seems to be Halibutt's list and he's entitled to track edits he wants to use for communicating with the editors in question.  On a side-note, I applaud Halibutt's concern to avoid undue escalation of his disputes with other users.  Clarification: delete is okay too.  Keep would be wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Witkacy 00:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page is a kangaroo court, conjured into existence solely to vilify me. Remove personal attacks. Nohat 00:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Lol. Ever heard of illusions de grandeur, Nohat? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The page did not exist until Witkacy decided Nohat was guilty of "anti-Polish behaviour" for removing the Polish name of Kiev from the first line of that article. Therefore Nohat's assertion that the page was conjured into existence solely to vilify him is accurate, and no illusion. (And people who grant themselves the title "Prokonsul" should be careful accusing other people of having illusions of grandeur.) --Angr/undefined 13:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ..for removing the Polish name in Kiev article..? (hmm?) For that anti-Polish remark: --Witkacy 15:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That Nohat has the dubious privilege of being the first person on this list is only an accident of timing, not any part of anti-Nohat conspiracy. As for my nick - which I don't think is an issue here - dear anon 'Angr' user - it is a tribute to the poem by Zbigniew Herbert Return of the Proconsul (Polish: Powrót Prokonsula) Unfortunately, I know of no English online translation of the poem, but if anything, it is a warning of danger of such illusions, not an endorsment :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not finding anything anti-Polish in what Nohat wrote. It seems remarkable to me that he should be listed, and not, say, Zivinbudas, who really does make extremely vitriolic anti-Polish remarks. But either way I don't think it's in the spirit of assuming good faith or harmonious cooperation to keep a list of every editor who's ever said something that has annoyed a Polish editor. It puts me in mind of the Lord High Executioner from The Mikado. --the non-anonmyous Angr/undefined 06:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - let's at least give this page a try. If it really proves to be harmful, it can be deleted.  For now, I don't see any problem.  This is not a page conjured to vilify anyone, certainly not Nohat who just happened to be the first name on this list. Still, if some users have a problem with the name Black Book, I would have no problem in changing it to something more acceptable. Balcer 01:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * move stuff to someone's userspace where it can be kept under any name the user likes. Certainly Delete from wikiproject's space. -Irpen 03:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Attack page.  Unacceptable use of the Wikipedia space.  RickK 04:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete a POV attack page. JamesBurns 05:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly say that you wish to avoid RfC or arbcom then make a list of accusations? i think Userfy is the best option here. If it develops further, take it to RfC. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 06:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy per RickK. --Angr/undefined 07:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy per what others have said -CunningLinguist 07:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy if there is no consensus on relevant main page (Polish Wikipedians Notice Board) to keep it. This page is not designed as attack, simply as collection of evidence and trivia. What rule states that one cannot copy and collect chosen remarks of other users? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rewrite and rename. For now, I suggest everyone should Assume good faith, and they should let the page develop. If the page does become a problem, this issue can be returned to some time later. On the other hand, I think that the rhetoric on the page should be toned down, and it should be made very clear from the start of the page that the purpose of the page is to defuse conflicts and avoid more formal dispute resolution such as WP:RFC and WP:RFAR, and it should make it very clear that the page is not the start of some hit list or enemies list. Blank Verse   &empty;   13:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy. This is a troubling page because it could quite easily be a forum for personal attacks, but some of the problems for the Polish users do seem on the surface to be genuine. However I don't think it should be in the Wikipedia: namespace. David | Talk 14:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is very nearly a duplication of RfC, but with an added assumption of anti-Polish bias against the accused.  (Quote: "This page is intended as a tool and an archive of such anti-Polish bias.") Dealing with perceived anti-Polish bias by encouraging Polish Wikipedians to pile on to other editors is not a useful dispute resolution step. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The very idea of a list of percieved ills and biased Wikipedians is incompatible with the declared purpose "to [constructively] communicate with the offending users".  Smacks of water cooler gossip for a community to create a page to detail the failings of people they don't like.  Go talk to the other users, don't create a forum for publicly ridiculing your opponents.  I would feel far more tolerant to this discussion page if it were framed as concerning one set of percieved problems, e.g. Nohat, rather than framed as the place we go to "archive" all "anti-Polish behavior".  Dragons flight 18:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree completely with TenOfAllTrades and Dragons flight. Eugene van der Pijll 18:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The stated purpose of that page would better be served by WP:RFC, and the current use of that page is as an attack page. --Carnildo 18:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Halibutt argues above: "The very point of that archive is to avoid starting the painful RFC, AtbCom or any other process." I can't see at all how a page like this is supposed to achieve this noble goal, or any other constructive goal for that matter. It is not designed to help establish a consensus, but to polarise. It serves as a soapbox for letting of steam on, discharging emotional frustration by pillorying opponents who one should rather deal with on a factual level.
 * Its mission statement, as worded in the page itself and above, is to archive "disputes, where other contributors [...] accuse people of nationalism or bias solely because they are Poles.", the underlying assumption being that "[m]any Wikipedians assume bad faith solely because the wikipedians they oppose are Polish."
 * I do not doubt that such cases do occur; but such statements are rarely made to one's face. Thus, that someone disagrees with another person only because of national resentment can only be inferred. With the odd exception, such motives cannot be proven - but neither can they be disproved, which makes it virtually impossible to defend oneself against such claims. That is why insinuations like that are poison to any reasonable debate, as they are about a person rather than just about an argument. To make it worse, as Halibutt says, "[s]uch views are promoted by numerous people here, whether conscient or not " [emphasis added], meaning that even when someone thinks they are not guided by national resentment, they are possibly just not aware of it.
 * Let's assume someone says "2x2=4" and I go and tell them "you really mean 2x2=5, you just don't know you do". Or, to be more precise, A says "2x2=5", B says "2x2=4" (or vice versa) and A replies "you only say so because you hate me". B then replies "I don't hate you, I just don't agree", against which A uses the ultimate killer argument "you do hate me, you just don't know it". Such pretensions not only do not conduce to, but effectively forestall any amicable settlement (or "za&#322;atwienie polubowne", as Halibutt called it on User talk:Piotrus). And they are certainly more "painful" than any request for comments or arbitration could ever be.
 * Of course, they are unfortunately ubiquitous, Wikipedia being no exception - but that is no justification to spread them any further. If we allow a page like this to stay live in the Wikipedia namespace, it sets an example that others are going to follow before too long: Jewish editors might claim a right to set up a similar combined soapbox/pillory for alleged ("latent") anti-Semites (such as Poles), Americans for anti-Americans (such as French), Armenians for anti-Armenians (such as Turks) etc. We shouldn't allow that to happen. If there are conflicts, let's try and solve them on the talk pages, or in arbitration if necessary, as tedious as this may be.
 * While I think that the page is within the limits of what is commonly accepted for user pages, I would nonetheless vehemently advise anyone against userfying it - as it would cast a very poor light on the person hosting it. IMHO, Deleting this is the only sound option. --Thorsten1 19:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete No possible use but as an attack page, whether against one person or many. If you have a problem with someone, take it up with them or take it to RfC.  --Xcali 19:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy if someone care's to(However, I agree with Thorsten about it making the hoster look bad; however, that's why it should be in User space, so a single user not a group can be held accountable for it). JesseW 22:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as an attack page, userfy if there is no consensus to delete. Martg76 22:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; Userfy if no consensus to delete. If you feel someone's conduct merits public discussion, start an RfC, which gives him/her a clear opportunity to respond. I disagree with the characterization above of the RfC process as inherently "painful": it's only painful if it is used as a form of attack. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the very point of RfC and ArbCom is to force the sides to obey some rules or agree to a solution of the problem. In other words, it means that in most cases reporting users on WP:RfC is equal to requesting their punishment or a ban. It is not the best way such problems should be dealt with, I believe. Asking the ArbCom to block people solely because they make nationalist remarks seems like the worst possible option to make them reconsider their views or apologise. But perhaps it's just me. Halibutt 11:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that RfC is just that: a request for comment. RfC is&mdash;or is supposed to be&mdash;an opportunity for different sides of a dispute to present their concerns and criticisms, and to seek community opinion.  (Here, community refers to all Wikipedians, and not just Polish ones.)  There is no mechanism for binding arbitrated settlements within RfC itself; it is meant to report and describe the disputed behaviour and seek outside comment.  Any resolution achieved through RfC is enforced through social pressure alone.  The ArbCom is not involved in the RfC process, and does not impose blocks, bans, or other restrictions.  In other words, RfC is supposed to be all the things that you've described the Black Book as. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Come on guys. Talking is a Polish way of dealing with problems. This is true that there is a considerable number of anti-Polish biased comments on Wikipedia. If we start reporting them all on RfC you will say that Poles just make a fuss. But the problem will remain. I really don&#8217;t see a difference between a comment made in face of someone and a generalisation, if the comment itself refers to all the people of one nation. As I understand, Witkacy tried so far all the possible methods to solve the problem except RfC. Now comes the time for discussion. Please, do not underestimate the value of our discussions, after all our talks were one of the main causes of failure of communism in Central and Eastern Europe. Please, do not assume bad will or that the talks will not be constructive. Give this page a chance. I really think it&#8217;s important to talk things out before reporting them to the highest stage. Why the page is here? Because it concerns all the Poles, not just Witkacy. However, if you insist on moving this page, I would readily offer to be its host, and no, I would not consider myself put in a bad light by defending the good name of my folks, Thorsten1. I don&#8217;t know, why you assume that everyone, who would not agree with a Pole, would be there, as I understand the dissidence of opinions is not the subject of this page. I also want to remind that this page was not established against any group of people or single persons. If there is any thing in initial description you find improper, please, be constructive and suggest your changes, but do not dismiss the entire idea. As the title appeared objectionable, may I propose mine &#8220;Night talks of Poles&#8221; instead? --SylwiaS 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sylwia, but I can't agree. At the risk of repeating myself, I fail to see how this page is supposed to help find a consensus: Offenders who find themselves pilloried will be even less likely to play nice; if anything, they will become more defiant.
 * You say that "Talking is a Polish way of dealing with problems." Fine, but talking is also a Polish way (not only a Polish way, of course) of creating problems - this page and discussion being a textbook example...
 * You said you "don&#8217;t know, why you assume that everyone, who would not agree with a Pole, would be there". Let me try and explain this once again: If I am not mistaken, the whole trouble began when Nohat mentioned the mere existence of Polish nationalists; he did not say anything like "all Poles are nationalists". This statement was all it took to get him blacklisted as a Polonophobe here. From this it follows logically that anyone who does not believe that the Polish nation, as about the only nation in the world, has not produced any nationalism at all, is a Polonophobe. Anyone who does not promulgate the opinion that all Poles are angelic creatures, innocent of any wrong-doing by definition, runs the risk of finding themselves in your "Black Book".
 * You say that "there is a considerable number of anti-Polish biased comments on Wikipedia". Fair enough, but then there is a considerable number of "anti-anything biased comments" on Wikipedia; Poles are by no means the only ones to suffer under biased or unfair comments. Why, there are even Polish "anti-Rest of World biased comments" (Western betrayal anyone?;-)) In response to this, should we really all form cosy national corrals in which we can whine about the wickedness of the outside world? Should we backbite and stigmatise our opponents as anti-whatever-ists from some collective soap-box?
 * You appeal to the principle of assuming good faith regarding this page - this is absurd, as the page itself is an instutionalisation of assuming bad faith in other users. You say you "would not consider [your]self put in a bad light by defending the good name of [your] folks". Well, the conviction that you constantly need to "defend the good name of your folks" seems to be a part of the problem here, rather than a part of the solution, but that's not really the issue. I am not surprised that you  would not consider yourself to be in a bad light - but that's not issue, either. The issue is that others may see you in a bad light, and, to make matters worse, might identify you with "your folks" on behalf of whom you claim to be speaking. Thus, if the comments of the non-Polish users in this vote are any indication, I feel that this page is going to accomplish the very opposite of its stated purpose, i.e. to "defend the good name of the Poles". Finally, to legitimise a page like this by sublime appeals to the Polish merits in overthrowing communism smacks of exactly what makes less Polonophile people shake their heads in wonderment. I really think that removing this page would be a win-win solution for all parties: both for the "good name" of the Poles, and for Wikipedia at large. --Thorsten1 22:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thorsten, you fail to see..? Yes, I&#8217;m afraid you are. Simply because you didn&#8217;t give this page a chance. Instead you wrote a long "proof" of all the evil, which according to you hides behind it. We say that a devil has big eyes, you managed to prove it, I grant you. I am sure that Poland as every country has its nationalists, there is nothing to argue about (however it was not, what Nohat said, though I can assume, he didn&#8217;t mean it). Moreover, if I thought that the issue of the page was as you described it, I would never give it my support. The problem of this discussion is elsewhere. There was nothing in intentions of this page, what you wrote about, but you chose to see it differently. Are those facts of just your assumptions? May I just ask few questions? 1. &#8220;Offenders who find themselves pilloried will be even less likely to play nice; if anything, they will become more defiant.&#8221; How do you know we would? Very likely we would decide to ignore such offends in future. 2. &#8220;talking is also a Polish way of creating problems&#8221; well, I agree, there wouldn&#8217;t be biased anti-Polish comments if there were no Poles. Can you give a real example of a real problem? 3. Do you think it possible to give people, who find themselves lost in discussion, several examples of better counterarguments than calling their advisors nationalists? 4. Western betrayal. Can you tell exactly what makes you so uneasy about it? You just made me read the latest discussion there. Many Poles giving their opinions, bringing facts, but no name calling. So is the title so hurtful or the existence of the unpleasant history itself? BTW I read your comments there and once again I cannot agree. Sorry, but one cannot discuss with history by saying, what if&#8230; Were there really plans of using a nuclear bomb in Poland or is that just one more black scenario? We don&#8217;t know, what Poles would do? Well, we certainly know, what they did, as well as what the West did. Can you at least see that going this way of thinking we might say: How do we know that Jews or Poles wouldn&#8217;t create extermination camps, if they were in Nazi&#8217;s place? Whatever question we might ask, those things never happened, therefore are no good arguments against facts. But never mind. Question 5. &#8220;the conviction that you constantly need to "defend the good name of your folks"&#8221; Why constantly? Can you tell, what do you mean? 6. &#8220;The issue is that others may see you in a bad light&#8221;. That&#8217;s exactly to what I said before that I wouldn&#8217;t care. Don&#8217;t you think?


 * As to the rest of your message, I refuse to answer. I read it couple times and I sincerely hope you didn&#8217;t mean it, you didn&#8217;t want to say such things. What I asked for, was just giving this page a chance, without prejudices, without black scenarios foreseeing things, which were no one&#8217;s intention. What I was given instead was a saddening message of your prejudiced feelings about Poles. Once again, no single fact, just a very unpleasant narration about your picture of us. It was enough to say that you oppose and spare me the rest, really. I am a Pole. Please, accept my best wishes. --SylwiaS 05:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sylvia, I think there is no point in prolonging this; all points have been stated clearly and the argument is by now going round in circles. Your response shows that you have been misinterpreting several of my statements, some deliberately and apparently in attempt to add fuel to the fire, others perhaps involuntarily. And some of your statements leave me utterly confused: How do Nazis, Jews, and nuclear bombs come into this? If you have something to say on Western betrayal, please do so at Talk:Western betrayal. I merely mentioned that article as an example that some Polish editors are arguably also affected by bias - not because I wanted to enter any debate here. As for your declared good intentions, I can well imagine that neither you nor anybody else who got involved with this page actually realised they were doing anything ungood - after all, I do assume good faith. Alas, your good intentions do not alter the fact that, by now, the overwhelming majority of the votes consider this page a display of bad faith. Of course, you may put that fact down to everyone here being a closet Polonophobe, if you really can't think of another explanation. Finally, I wonder where you see "a saddening message of [my] prejudiced feelings about Poles" and, "once again", "a very unpleasant narration about [my] picture of [Poles]". I do not remember ever making any generalised statements about Poles (or any other nation or collectivity, for that matter). But probably I'm just not aware of my anti-Polish sentiments, right? So if you wish, go ahead and add me to your blacklist while the fun lasts. --Thorsten1 22:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, it's best to end this discussion. Glad that we all do assume good faith - after all. --SylwiaS 00:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Black Book is a bit of an overkill. In the case the page is preserved in some form I definetly support a name change to something less agressive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Juliet, a piece of shit by any other name would still smell like a piece of shit. Nohat 08:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, personal attack magnet. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have nominated How to deal with Poles for deletion. Comments on this should be made at meta:RFD.  Dragons flight 16:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userify with prejudice. Blacklists outside established procedures are completely unacceptable in Wikipedia namespace. If anybody wants to keep this in their personal space and be that closely associated with it, be our guest, as far as I'm concerned, but do expect people to judge you by it. Zocky 22:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice as inappropriate for what is effectively a "WikiProject" by another name. Should every "Nationality Wikipedians' notice board" keep a "Black Book" of those Wikipedians perceived as being prejudiced? We'd be over-run. --Phil | Talk 12:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is effectively a project to collect potential incriminating evidence. Such a project should only be undertaken when the dispute resolution process is being used, or the evidence may be gathered on a user subpage prior to pursuing a particular avenue of dispute resolution. If someone cares to volunteer to host this in their user space, I suppose that could be considered, but it does not belong where it is now. --Michael Snow 21:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy per RickK. Fjl 13:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not help us write an encyclopedia. The name alone indicates that it is a bad faith effort. If there are problems with specific editors then there are existing methods for dispute resolution. -Willmcw 20:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy. Agree with everything said above -- if someone's being anti-Polish and it's disrupting the Wikipedia, take it to arbitration so that the racist can be banned.  That's not clogging up RfAr, that's what the arbitration committee is supposed to do: ban disruptive and unpleasant people.   Tuf-Kat 21:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Omegatron 01:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Chris 73 Talk 15:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice as per, um, everyone else, all good points made here. This is a ridiculous project. Ever heard "two wrongs don't make a right"? Well by (misconstruing?) their edits as racist you are breaching WP:NPA. Calling someone a racist could be quite an insult if that wasn't what they were intending. We do not allow racism, but nor can we let you create this little political-correctness bubble around yourselves if it is being done at the cost of WP:NPA. Master Thief GarrettTalk 02:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .