Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983

• Darlig Gitarist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count
• contribs to William M. Branham

Please consider a topic ban for User:Darlig Gitarist (DG) from William M. Branham topics, or an outright Wikipedia editing ban. This editor has shown a trend of disruptive editing and using Wikipedia as a platform for activism over the past six years. He often resorts to intimidation, harassment, and insults; which make objectively editing the William Branham page almost impossible except for the most experienced and confident editors.

Taxee and Darlig Gitarist are the same person; the two user names were merged in 2017. diff

It is important to note that he is a "former member of a Branhamite church” diff who engages in advocacy, mainly manifested through disruptive editing. He is a disruptive editor as defined by Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Examples of disruptive editing. The following shows that this is an ongoing pattern and not an isolated incident. I can provide many more examples if needed.

A disruptive editor: Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; misrepresents reliable sources:

• November 2014: Another deliberate misrepresentation of an author: “Branham is viewed as a false prophet by most evangelicals” diff. He attempts to attribute this to author Hank Hanegraaff by adding his own opinion right before the reference to Hanegraaff’s book. This cannot be found in the book he references. Again, displays clear bias and willingly deceptive editing.

Cites unencyclopedic sources:

• October 2014: DG references online articles written by a co-activist to a forum hosted on a San Diego State University server in an attempt to give more weight to the Jim Jones reference he also added diff (More on this below). DG later implies that the referenced material is “ from articles from University of San Diego website.” diff. After contacting the research editor where these articles are hosted, I received this reply to my questions: "Are the articles posted on your website peer-reviewed, vetted, and/or endorsed by San Diego State University?" Editor (No). "Does SDSU have oversight over what is published on your webpage? That does NOT mean that an employee works on editing the site. It means that this is an official University webpage that represents SDSU, not simply a page that is hosted on the University’s server." Editor (No) "Do you represent SDSU in an official capacity? If not, who can I contact with my concerns?" Editor (No. I could refer you to somebody, but I would want to be sure that these email exchanges be part of the record.) This is clearly and attempt to add credibility to the self-published material by saying that they are from San Diego State University when they are not. diff

• August 2012: He added a link to a web site devoted to posting daily anti-Branham blogs (a website commonly referenced by DG). diff

• September 2017: DG blocks another editor’s attempt to add newspaper references to the article “Danpeanuts - one more time - Wikipedia policy requires that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”. diff

Yet he doesn't follow his own advice, and here uses a single article to make an exceptional claim that William Branham is connected to yet another infamous character:

• October 2016: DG adds a reference to William Branham to the Paul Schäfer page, with the sole source being a single newspaper article with a two-sentence mention. diff diff Within minutes, he added a link to Paul Schäfer on the William Branham article diff. It was deleted, but he re-added it a few months later. He then added a reference and link to Jim Jones on the Paul Schäfer page diff.. There is no encyclopedic justification to add a Jim Jones link to the Paul Schäfer article other than to satisfy DG’s activist purposes. This is simply employing circular reasoning to attempt to make William Branham "guilty by association".

Is tendentious:

• August 2012: DG’s edit summary states: “reverted a biased edit that moved a pro-Branham website to the top of the list” diff This tit-for-tat reverting is common on his part, but not with other editors on the page. The other editors seem to just give up.

• August 2012: DG adds non-NPOV wording “Branham’s claim is suspect” diff and references the same anti-Branham web site.

• September 2012: DG’s edit summary: “Added link to an ebook that is critical of Branham's ministry” diff. Adding a link simply because it is “critical” does not seem appropriate for a NPOV editor.

• September 2012: DG advocates for “highly critical”, self-published blog material: “Over the past couple of years a number of ebooks and websites have come out that are highly critical of William Branham's ministry, including: A Logical Refutation of William Branham's Message, Believethesign.com, Legend of the Fall, by Peter M. Duyzer, Seek The Truth website. The information and research provided in these sources must be included in this article in order to achieve NPOV status, which I think is presently lacking" diff

Rejects or ignores community input:

• October 2017: DG protested references BEFORE reading them. “I haven't read any of the newspaper reports but I doubt if they will stand up to the scrutiny of more skeptical editors…Did they do background checks to ensure that the people that said they were healed were actually sick to begin with? Did you look for any skeptical articles with respect to Branham?” diff. ( “…I don't think it is appropriate to doubt a source is legitimate without reading it. ” diff

• September 2017: A different editor complains: “Darlig, Do you realize that you are warring? This site does not belong to you! It is for others to add information too…” diff

• September 2017: Another complaint about his non-NPOV when he refused to cooperate with another editor wishing to add material: “From my outside perspective, it appears valid sources are being discounted” diff

• September 2014: DG’s edit summary: “added paragraph on Branham's 1956 meetings with Jim Jones” diff. This is a BIG DEAL because it was added to make William Branham guilty by association. The inappropriate nature of this reference being in this article is best summarized by this opinion given by a respected Wiki editor here, who is at this time attempting to bring the page up to Wikipedia NPOV standards.

• There is, and has been, consensus among editors to remove the Jim Jones reference, but DG reverts any attempts to remove it. Just a few weeks ago another editor tried to remove it as others have. DG reverted it again and said in his edit summary “The majority of editors agreed to keep this paragraph as it is relevant” diff This is not true. There is consensus to remove the reference.

• After another different editor tried to remove it by claiming consensus and it was again reverted, the discussion on the Talk page came under a sockpuppet attack in order to sway the consensus. (see here) DG was questioned by an admin on his Talk page concerning this: “On an unrelated note, quite a few editors who recently commented at Talk:William M. Branham were recently blocked for sockpuppetry, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Aarynn7/Archive. Do you know anything about that??” diff. DG answered the question in an evasive manner “I am aware of the discussion on the Willianm Branham talk page” diff as he has before when asked about his role as an advocate/COI website editor.

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: manifested in this case by resorting to personal religious attacks to editors DG believes are followers of William Branham

• July 2013: DG removes links to the official William Branham Ministries web site and others, while calling them “cult websites”. diff DG labels disagreeing editors a cult often.

• July 2013: More insults “In this case, followers of the cult of William Branham are trying to avoid the obvious concerns from those outside the cult that the outrageous claims of William Branham are given credibility.” diff

• July 2013: More insults, threats, and intimidation “at the very least, the wild claims of Branham that are perpetuated by members of the cult here on Wikipedia should be eliminated” diff

• May 18, 2015: When other editors disagree with him, he immediately infers that they must be Branham followers “I assume from your comments, Eforsund, that you are follower of Branham” diff

• July 2013: DG looks up editors outside Wikipedia and uses information for further intimidation. “That you are biased in respect of this article is perfectly clear, given you online comments outside of Wikipedia”.diff

• March 2018: I posted my opinion on the removal of the Jim Jones reference on the Talk page according to COI guidelines, and he harasses me by accusing me of advocating: diff I was in complete compliance, as you can see from the history. He went on to discredit and intimidate me further by saying, “but as an employee of an organization (by your admission above) that exists solely to promote William Branham and believes him to be infallible... ” Note that this is not true, and further, it is an insult to me and my faith to say that I believe any human being is infallible, and he knows it. This is another attempt to mischaracterize anyone as a cult member who challenges him, just as he did with Rev107, Eforsund, and others.

• April 2018: I went to DG’s user talk page, asking him if he is an editor of an anti-Branham web site (which he is). He again refused to answer and instead tries wikilawyering by accusing me of harassing, etc., and went on to stereotype me as he does with many of the other editors.

No other editors (other than socks) on this page have used the word “cult” or resorted to personal insults like DG has. This pattern has persisted since 2012.

Please note that I, DEvans, work for William Branham Ministries. It is my opinion that a well-written, neutral, factual page is a benefit to everyone. I plainly disclosed my COI on my user page and on every edit to the WB Talk page. DG, on the other hand, has neither disclosed his COI nor his position as editor of an anti-Branham activist web site. Please consider a Topic Ban or a complete editing ban based on DG’s advocacy and disruptive editing that has resulted in his misquoting of authors, insults, intimidation, original research (opinions published as fact), and his constant harassment of other editors. This will help secure the integrity of Wikipedia in this issue. DEvans (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am astonished at DEvans accusations above. I think a valid question is whether DEvans is being paid by an NRM to try to influence the content of the article on William Branham?

My "crime" is that I spent a great deal of time on William Branham article and managed to get it qualified as a GA in August 31, 2017 which resulted in it being listed as such. This was the first time I have worked on getting an article GA status. It was resubmitted for good article reassessment in October 10, 2017, which result in its status as a GA being kept. I would ask that you please review the GA article conversations to see whether my actions could be considered inappropriate.

I would also ask @Display name 99: (who did a great job in conducting the GA review) or other longstanding editors such as @Theroadislong: or @Bonadea:, who have also been involved in editing the William Branham page (and whom I do not know other than through their editing on Wikipedia), whether my editing has been tendentious.

Achieving GA status was a great learning exercise for me in what makes a good Wikipedia article (and involved me removing information in the article that I and others had previously added). All references to primary source materials were removed and the entire article was thoroughly referenced to secondary source material in accordance with what I understood to be good Wikipedia practice.

The William Branham article is currently undergoing a peer review with the view to making it a feature article. I have been largely uninvolved in this significant rewrite of the article and am happy to see the article improved.

My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham. I am also interested in NRM's in general. A Wikipedia article on a new religious movement should not be a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but the focus should be to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement.

Please note that there are only 2 references to "incidents" in 2018. With respect to the first, DEvans took no offense at the time. My comment was based on the research I had done as to the beliefs of those that followed William Branham. I also commended him for being transparent. If he had taken offense at the time and corrected me in my statement, I would have apologized for misunderstanding his belief set. But he did not. I am astonished he is now taking exception to it.

With respect to his second reference to 2018, it is my understanding that speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. He decided to try to harass me on the basis that I had a COI. I chose not to respond to his speculations, which is my right. It is not surprising that given the failure of his efforts on that front, he has decided to take a different approach.

I do understand why the word "cult" is offensive to DEvans. However, it is used in some secondary sources on William Branham and the word "cult" still can be found today in the William Branham article, even after it has undergone multiple reviews by experienced editors.

Attention should be made to DEvan's contributions which clearly show that he is only focused on one thing on Wikipedia and that is to influence the content of the article on William Branham (DEvans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I would ask why he is making these accusations against me. Is it because he wants to benefit the users of Wikipedia or is it solely because he is being paid to influence the article in a particular direction? Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Here's my take on the situation: the Branham article used to be a glowing hagiography, as can be seen in pretty much every version before mid-2014. Darlig Gitarist was one of the main editors working hard to set that situation right, by for instance removing claims in Wikipedia's voice that supernatural events took place in reality, and by adding tons of scholarly sources. I first noticed the article in August 2017 (I have forgotten what brought my attention to it, but maybe a Teahouse post?) ; I had never heard of Branham before, but it became rather obvious rather quickly that this is one of the many articles about various religious persons or organisations that suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way. That is not uncommon, I've seen it in many other articles, but that's why we have NPOV policies in place. Anyway, Darlig G is not the POV warrior here, and the fact that the article was evaluated for GA status and passed after DG's efforts to improve it is indicative of that. I don't know exactly what's been going on there recently. I removed the article in question from my watchlist a couple of months ago because I couldn't take the constant POV pushing and sniping from Branham's followers, but I applaud DG's persistance in maintaining a NPOV stance in the article. There is absolutely no cause for a tban against Darlig Gitarist. --bonadea contributions talk 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea Thank you for your comment. Although I don’t agree with some of your edits/opinions on the WB page, I think you are a NPOV editor, and you have a great history of all kinds of contributions. You certainly have my respect. I also 100% agree with you that some of these pages “suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way.” DG is VERY close to the “faith in question.” In fact, contrary to what DG said above, “My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham”, he is a disgruntled former church member diff. Do you see the pattern of dishonesty? His contribution of what you termed “scholarly sources” is limited to scouring text for any obscure negative comments and adding self-published material as long as it is negative (please read the case). Further, I and at least one other editor, asked him about his role as an editor to an anti-Branham website, and he would not answer the question. diff. I, on the other hand, could have easily chosen to edit the page under another user ID and had a whole lot more impact, but I chose to be honest and divulge my association. As you can see from my history, I’ve only weighed in on the most egregious anti-Branham edits by DG and have done my best to follow the rules to the letter. Please take another look at what I have written above along with the DIFFs. His own words should show you his intentions. Also notice that he did not address any of his actions listed above. His only defense was to try and discredit me. DEvans (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for what's gone on at the article since the GA review, having not kept track of it, but during and before the review I saw nothing particularly wrong with Darlig Gitarist's edits. There was some disruption at the article which did cause me to consider failing the review, but it seemed to me at the time that the blame would go mostly towards other editors using the article to push an agenda. Display name 99 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Thank you for your comment. No reviewer should be responsible for much more than spot-checking references, so I am in no way questioning your GA review. I believe you did a professional job. However, would you have supported the GA nomination knowing this type of misrepresentation of authors was in the text? diff diff DEvans (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The first edit that you linked to concerning Branham being viewed as God does seem problematic, but having checked the article history from when it was promoted in August 2017 I can see that it was no longer there. I found nothing wrong with the second edit except for the fact that it wasn't sourced. I presume one was eventually added or else I would not have passed the review. Basically, both problems seem to have been corrected by the time I arrived. So yes. Display name 99 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There have now been 3 responses and no one has addressed any of the facts I presented. DEvans (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG 100.33.106.43 (talk

) 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out and backing up that someone is misrepresenting sources is not uncivil. Pointing out that someone is engaging in original research, and particularly obnoxious and over-the-top POV original research, is not uncivil. Frqancois Robere's edits in this topic area have been a significant source of disruption for about a month now (due to his persistence and attempts to insert said OR into other articles, they had to be put under 1RR). And I'm totally sick of dealing with someone who's clearly playing games. For example, he keeps asking me "what did I misrepresent", "what OR did I engage in" - and then I replied THREE TIMES. Hell, one of those times I was tired of writing the same thing in different ways so I just copy/pasted myself (as the diffs show): "I note that there's still no source for "late", in either war or "rebellion"." And THEN he comes back and demands to know AGAIN [4]. How are you suppose to have a discussion with someone like that (he finally quoted... another author)??? I don't appreciate having someone sit there and waste my time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't back anything, Marek:

1. I addressd your question about "late" several times [5][6][7]. Instead of trying to reach consensus, you disappeared [8].
2. You claimed I made aMn accusation against AK, which I didn't. I asked you to clarify - you didn't.
3. You said I distorted some quotes; I asked you to show me where - you didn't.
4. You claimed I was "deeply ignorant of basic facts" just two sentences after getting a basic date wrong, but you didn't retract it.
5. You claimed I was "slapping this over-the-top extremist and fringe POV", which is supported by at least 6 RS.
6. And finally, you claim I "brought" 1RR to the article, despite the fact that the whole field has been contentious since at least 2007 [9][10].

This isn't "backing up" anything, this is smearing. François Robere (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"I addressd your question about "late" several times " <-- No, no you didn't. You pretended to address it. The question was "please provide sources for your claim that the Home Army only provided weapons to Jewish Fighting Organization "late in the war"". Let's look at your diffs.

First diff: [11]. First you try to weasel out of not having sources by changing "late in the war" to "late in the rebellion". Then you cite a source WHICH DOES NOT say EITHER! That IS misrepresentation of sources.

Second diff: [12]. This particular comment from you is the one that is over-the-top obnoxious and POV and offensive. It's classic

WP:AGENDA

is on this article. And did I mention no sources?

Third diff [13]. Again, no sources, just more (incorrect) original research. Oh, wait, you quote... a Wikipedia article (which happens to have gotten it wrong). And this incorrect original research DOES NOT actually address the issue!

I'm sorry but this isn't "answering the question". This is straight up obfuscation and weaseling intended to mask the fact that you got busted misrepresenting sources.

As an aside, I've actually had conversations and communications with families of the Ghetto Fighters (I'm actually the guy who wrote quite a number of Wikipedia articles on these guys) and inquired about historical details, memories, etc. What you are doing here is offensive to their memory and is just shameful. Go screw up some other topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And " just two sentences after getting a basic date wrong" <-- I didn't get any date wrong. You just either have no clue what you're talking about or you're making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I take to the diffs, note that you've only answered the first point; apologies are still due for the other five.

• First diff: Again, you start with an insult ("weasel out"). I gave you a source stating arms were at a "meager supply" until halfway through the war, and on several occasions suggested you rephrase as you see fit. I see it as "compromising to reach consensus"; to you it's "weaseling out".
• Second diff: You asked for a timeline, didn't you? [14] So I gave you a timeline. Considering I based it on both "my" RS and the ones already in the article (and other articles, like
  Warsaw ghetto uprising
  ), saying it's OR is OR in its own right. The rest of your comments about bias and POV are completely fictional, and not as much as tethered in anything I wrote.
• Third diff: There's nothing OR about it. It's all very straightforward, and I really don't get what's your problem. If we have sources saying the ghetto was ill-supplied, and we know the resistance was hesitant to supply it, and we know they only agreed to do so after a personal appeal to Sikorski and a "proof of concept" battle with the Germans - both of which took place months, or even years after the ghetto resistance was formed - then what's the problem? All of this is well sourced, and considering I didn't even insist on that word - you did - I really don't get what's your problem.

I didn't get any date wrong - you said ZOB didn't exist until November 1942; it was actually founded in July of the same year, as its article correctly states (RS). So yes, you got it wrong, and you should apologize for the slew of insults that followed.

As for your conversations with families of ghetto fighters: Wikipedia is based on RS, not on your or my personal feelings. What's more, you assume you're the only one who's had "conversations and communications" of this kind - how well do you know your fellow editors that you'll make this assumption? Even worse, you're blind to sources that were themselves fighters or survivors: Krakowski, Feiner and Bauer - who are you to say their words are worth any less than yours? François Robere (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't find Volunteer Marek's comments uncivil, especially considering François Robere constant coming back with the same issues. And he does it on multiple Poland's related articles, over and over again,[15] and again, [16] and again,[17]. It appears his actions are intended to exhaust the opposition. Troubling and should be finally addressed.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Bella, you don't find anyone's comments "uncivil" as long as you agree with them. You didn't even mind citing this handsome gal as a source when it suited you [18], and just today you decided - after months of distoring sources and refusing to budge [19] - that Jews can't really be communists because they're Jews [20]. This should indeed be addressed. François Robere (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What I meant was that they were not religious Jews but communist partisans of Jewish heritage, STOP making things up. On top of that, it appears that you just accused me of being racist! [21] This is too much!GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so there's no such thing as secular Jews? Bella, how many Jews do you actually know? François Robere (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

MYSELF! Anything else you'd like to add?GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You described historical anti-semitism in Poland as "small conflicts" [22]; characterized wartime anti-semtisim as marginal, and backed sources that claim it was due to some Jewish affinity to communism; made a point of marking sources according to their nationality, suggesting their reliability is compromised [23][24]; suggested on several occasions that the whole discussion is motivated by money [25][26]; characterised the whole discussion in ethnic terms - "Polish" vs. "Jewish" - and backed the former [27][28][29]; repeatedly made edits that portray Polish collaborators as "unwilling" and "tacit", while pushing narratives of Jewish collaboration [30]; and finally, for the pièce de résistance, brought a source that claims that "ghettos were not that bad" [31]. I don't know what's your story (and it doesn't interest me in the slightest), but I'm well past believing anything you say that isn't backed by RS. François Robere (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• comment Holy cow! François Robere is accusing Volunteer Marek of incivility! Is this a sign of the end times?! I don't know how you ANI regulars do it. Anyway, proposing a TBAN of each against posting about the other at ANI or AN of maybe anywhere else.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't reported FR anywhere (though he sure deserves it) so I'm not clear on what the purpose of such a ban would be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course you didn't. You accused me of "making shit up" as early as March 18th [32] - why would you want to report that? François Robere (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

per GizzyCatBella, perhaps it's time for TBAN of François Robere on relevant articles. My impression is they are a greater net negative than Volunteer Marek. Too much drama and disruption.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

per GizzyCatBella, travel guides are proper sources [33]. I'd hedge my bets better if I were you. François Robere (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see much actionable in either VM or FR's comments on the talk page; VM's comments aren't personal attacks (edging on them, but not there), and FR is trying to get specific information from VM that VM seems to not be providing. I would think that it would help if VM addressed the specific comment on what mis-characterization of Zimmerman that they state FR is using, as that's what FR is trying to figure out to address their argument better, but instead VM is deflecting it. Again, we can't act on that behavior, but it's not helpful to keep heated discussion away. --Masem (t) 17:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what info I'm not suppose to be providing. He made a claim. I asked for sources. He evaded the question. I asked for sources. He evaded the questions. As to Zimmerman, it's simply NOT the case that he says anything like FR claims he says. I don't know how I'm suppose to prove a negative, except to say "no, he doesn't say anything like that".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't disappear for five days only to come back and claim "I already answered this!!!". What exactly did I "evade"?

As for Zimmerman: I asked you a simple question: What did I supposadely say that he didn't. The answer should be straightforward. François Robere (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And like I already said several times, I already answered it several times Like here. Here it is again. You claimed that, according to Zimmerman ""Keep in mind AK and other organizations routinely referred to Jewish refugees and partisans as "bandits" regardless of their activities"" This is completely false. Zimmerman says no such thing. I guess you can try to get out of this by claiming that the claim is made by ... someone else, Krakowski, in a volume edited by Zimmerman. Ok, but then there's also this: "As for Rashke - he's just a secondary source here, but his claim is established by Zimmerman quoting the actual message from the Jewish resistance to Sikorski." Which again, is a misrepresentation of Zimmerman (and your own original research) And this is the part you are trying to falsely portray as supporting the "late in the war" nonsense ("late" being 1943, a few months after ZOB was first formed). This discussion right here is a perfect example why it's impossible to talk to you about this topic. You just jump from one falsehood to another and then claim that when people don't immediately respond to your nonsense they "disappeared". It's a standard

WP:CPUSH tactic.Volunteer Marek (talk

) 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is another misrepresentation of Zimmerman. You say: "Zimmerman, p. 255[5] suggests the difference between the report and the order was due to outside criticism, or fear thereof". Here is the source [34]. What it actually says is omission of any mention of Jews in the actual order "suggested" (as in "maybe") that "Komorowski was aware that (...) (mentioning Jews in this context) would make the underground vulnerably to accusations of antisemitism". Now, you can interpret that in a way which is charitable to Komorowski, or in a way which is not charitable to Komorowski (Zimmerman more or less splits the difference), but one thing for sure, **there's nothing in that source about "outside criticism"**. Komorowski decided to word his actual order the way he did all on his own, and Zimmerman is clear on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that, according to Zimmerman... - No, I didn't. I quoted Zimmerman regarding Bór-Komorowski's orders (116 & 220) [35]. Krakowski is a whole different source.

I already answered it several times - I don't know what you're referring to, but I know I gave you 4 RS on it [36].

What's wrong with stating that Zimmerman and Rashke both cite the same order, but only Zimmerman also quotes it? That's not OR, that's two sources in agreement.

this is the part you are trying to falsely portray [Zimmerman] as supporting the "late in the war" nonsense - no, I don't. The article already quoted Zimmerman (Zimmerman describes the supplies as "limited but real) - I merely summarised it [37]. I already told you that [38], but you keep insisting.

there's nothing in that source about "outside criticism" - what's "accusations of antisemtism" and "[evidence] to accuse the Home Army of complicity" if not "oustide criticism"?

This is important: You keep reading into my comments things I didn't say: You think I accused the AK of the ghetto calamity, but I said nothing even remotely close; you think that by using the phrase "outside criticism" I suggested that Komorowski got "help" with the letter, but I didn't - the way I used "criticism" was completely in line with Zimmerman's "accusations". It's like the discussion is taking place in two parallel channels: I say one thing, you hear something completely different (then complain about it). Why is that? François Robere (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment2 - François Robere should focus on the matter of this complaint instead of attacking people commenting not in his favor.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You inserted yourself into the discussion, Bella. Don't pose. François Robere (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I commented on the matters related to the complaint, that is a usual procedure. Instead of focusing on the claim you attacked Dlohcierekim and me directly for addressing remarks that were not in your favor.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You gave your point of view, and I gave background on where you're coming from. It's all pertinent. François Robere (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You attacked the reputation of people who are not directly involved in the alleged uncivil commentary complaint for merely daring to comment. That is not okay.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What's not okay, Bella, is smearing an editor (or a source [39][40]) just because they disagree with you. You know what? I encourage anyone reading this to follow your comments links (I'll even fix the broken one for you), and see for themselves how these discussions unfolded. Then they can opine on whether your comment had any merit, or was it another smear. François Robere (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• AE time perhaps even in this thread I evidence of TE , POV pushing and aspersions in a DS area. Sounds like a good candidate for AE to look at
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  18:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ARBCOM is on the verge of accepting a different case related to editing World War II topics; I've discouraged them from pulling the ongoing Poland-related WWII disputes into that case.
    π, ν
    ) 00:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: ArbCom (new cases) and AE (enforcement) are different processes, as I understand. DS system already exists under the Eastern European case, so this perhaps should be taken to
  WP:AE. --K.e.coffman (talk
  ) 01:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

See AN thread, linked below. Swarm ♠ 18:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello.
I am aware this is not the right place for this issue, also of the fact that there is nothing that can be done regarding this. But I wanted to get opinions from other editors as well.

I have been sort of inactive since last few days/weeks. On May 3, 2018; there was one failed attempt to login to my account. I ignored that (it wasnt me). But when I logged in today, there was another notification telling me that there were multiple attempts to login. This wasnt me either. Just to be sure, I have updated my password.

Has something similar happened with anybody else recently? This is why I actually I brought this up here, in case somebody is trying to login to others' account. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• PS: I am aware nothing can be done about it, but I request to other editors to keep this thread open for a while (2-3 days?) so that other editors may comment if they are having the same issue. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_help-_who_tried_to_break_into_my_account?. Short answer, this has happened to everybody. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There do appear to be some non-neutral edits to the article. But it would be best to address those on the talk page, per the closer's comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the above closed section