Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by Icewhiz

Placeholder. Expect to submit soon.Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by My very best wishes

WP:Battle by Icewhiz

Icewhiz recently made this series of edits [1],[2],[3],[4],[5], [6][7],[8],[9],[10]. This looks like a systematic removal of sourced information about political repression of Polish population by the Polish communist regime and Soviet NKVD. None of the content Icewhiz removed was even remotely antisemitic, except maybe only this (note edit summary). However, instead of simply removing "Jewish" (which would be reasonable), Icewhiz removes info that the person was involeved "in Stalinist regime show trials of the 1950s" and implicated in the arrests and executions (She served as a state prosecutor, as sourced on the page). With regard to several last removals (diffs 6 to 10), Icewhiz tells it was "just" an ethnic cleansing of Polish population, rather than genocide (discussion). Not according to many academic RS [11], [12]. This edit by Icewhiz is like removing word "Nazi" from an article about crimes by Nazi Germany (so it become just "Germany"). No wonder, such edits by Icewhiz led to numerous reverts (mostly per WP:BRD) and disputes on these pages.

Why Icewhiz is doing this? To answer this question, one should look at the previous history of relations between Icewhiz and the same Polish users. There were several contentious WP:AE discussions, with some participants, like Poeticbent, losing their temper and receiving their topic bans for cursing Icewhiz. I also noticed that Icewhiz said this (“a redline conduct issue”) meaning this edit by VM. What? It was written: "a Polish officer ... of the Polish People's Republic." VM removed one of the "Polish". That's fine. But somehow Icewhiz perceived this edit as "a redline conduct issue" because Morel "happened to be Jewish". This is a blatant misinterpretation by Icewhiz.

Given that, I believe this series of edits by Icewhiz does not really reflects his POV (an anti-Polish or whatever), but it was rather an elaborate game to provoke Polish users who will follow his edits, so he can cry wolf (aka wikistalking and tag-teaming) [13] when it comes to submitting his WP:AE report or the arbitration request. No, as long as contributors work to improve content, I think this is not tag-teaming and wikistalking, but should be viewed as a productive collaboration. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• 1st diff by Molobo. I would not dispute words by Icewhiz about a differentiation between Nazi policy vs. Jews and Poles. However, saying that genocidal policies by Nazi were directed only against Polish "dissenters and elites" can indeed be regarded as whitewashing crimes by Nazi that are well known and resulted in extermination of civilian population.

@Molobo - yes, sure, that was genocide by Nazi against the Polish nation, and Icewhiz suppose to know it.

Evidence presented by François Robere

Have way too much stuff. TBD. François Robere (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by MJL

I'm not involved in this case nor have historically had significant connections with either user. I'm going to be submitting some boring evidence for the sake of process. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Edited: 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I have given a brief overview of some selected moments both editors had. If this completely useless, any clerk is welcome to remove it. I just ask to be pinged in the edit summary please, so I know for the future. If any further analysis is asked of me, I will be happy to provide as well. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek's history with Arbcom

On 3 November 2010, Volunteer Marek requested [14] and was granted [15] an account rename citing personal privacy. [16]

VM was a party to WP:EEML

In Eastern European mailing list, after being opened by motion, [17] Volunteer Marek was added as a party. [18]

This ultimately led to a finding of fact, an admonishment and a sanction against the editor (the admonishment was to all participants). [19]

Previous sanction against VM rescinded by Arbcom

On 21 June 2010, the committee removed its previous sanction against the editor. [20]

This was after a previous motion to amend the case that narrowed the topic ban having been enacted. [21]

Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz's history with Eastern Europe and VM

This is only a partial account of Icewhiz's history with processes related to VM and topics related to Eastern Europe.

Icewhiz filed an unsuccessful 3RR request against VM

On 29 June 2018, Icewhiz filed a report against Volunteer Marek. [22] It was closed with a note to seek dispute resolution in the future. [23]

Both editors were topic banned at WP:AE for battleground behavior

An AE request was filed by Icewhiz. [24] This request was m=ade after a then-recent AE filling against Icewhiz. [25]

The AE request filed by Icewhiz was closed with a topic ban related to history of Poland in World War II (1933-45) for three months. [26]

Icewhiz submitted an amendment request to Eastern Europe

Recently, Icewhiz attempted to have Arbcom amend Eastern Europe. The request would have Arbcom apply (among other things) a sourcing restriction for Polish-Jewish relations. [27] It was closed with no action. [28]

Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by MyMoloboaccount

Provocative and inflamming edits by Icewhiz

As a long standing user who has written such articles on Holocaust as Operation 1005 I see many of comments by Icewhiz and edits as very provocative,and it is difficult not to see them as aiming at inflamming discussion or other editors.Edits often contribute nothing but ethnic based remarks and inflammatory claims that seem to be aimed at stirring up arguments rather than constructive work on encyclopedia.

• In this edit Icewhiz was claiming that Nazis only murdered Polish "dissenters and elites" rather than women and children; when I asked ""Are you claiming Polish civilians, women and children murdered by Nazis were dissenters",Icewhiz response was "dissenters and elites"[29]

It's hard not to see this response as either WP:Bait or attempt to inflame the discussion.

• In here[30] Icewhiz removes information about Polish rescue of Jews under the title "remove Polish rescue myth"

• [31]Icewhiz falsified a source stating that villagers massacred by Soviet/Jewish unit were supposedly hunting down Jews.There is nothing about Naliboki village on page 280. To make it easier, I uploaded a screenshot from the source in question showing that there is nothing about Naliboki villagers attacking Jews on page 280[32].Icewhiz then claimed the statement about Naliboki villagers is on page 283. Here is the screen of page 283-nothing about inhabitants of Naliboki village doing such a thing[33].Falsification.

• [34]

Outside of Polish nationalist circles (supposedly, Polish airmen in the UK even plotted flying to bomb Buckingham palace and parliament) Icewhiz sourced this quite controversial claim and statement to Najwyższy Czas!. Why did he do so if he himself was adding information that NajwyzszyCzas! is highly unreliable source?[35]This seems a clear case of POV pushing and inflamming the discussion to provoke others using unreliable sources-and Icewhiz would be perfectly aware of that as he edited article on this source.

• [36]

Here Icewhiz states that Ethnic Poles were responsible for killing and capturing Jews, the book describes actions carried out by Ukrainian and Belarussian villagers as well, yet Icewhiz edits the article to mention only "ethnic Poles" Contrast this edit with the following different edit by Icewhiz: [37] An order in which ethnic Poles were targetted for executions(and were majority victims)-Icewhiz removes Poles and replaces it with "people".

• Here[38]

Removal of the whole article about infamous mass murderer including list of atrocities, the article had several reliable sources including Cambridge University Press(I count only one which could be removed)

• Here [39] Icewhiz removed information that Poles were target of genocide by Nazi Germany with the claim "unsupported by source".I have uploaded the screenshot of the source in question,it does state that there was genocide[40].

• "He's advancing polocaust, which is quite fringey" Ethnic based deregatory term and statement about Nazi Germany genocide against Polish people. .
• Obviously, it is possible to find polophilic writers in English Ethnic based attack to discredit source.
• [41]Stating that largest Polish anti-Nazi resistance group Home Army is responsible for deaths of 100,000-200,000 Jews, using a quote by controversial author that doesn't even have anything about Home Army in it.
• [42]Stating that Polish civilians attacked in massacres and raids by Soviet and Jewish partisans were engaging in theft of Jewish property.Seems to be nothing more than attempt to provoke other editors here.
• we wouldn't add such a section to the Nazi Party and here ,Certainly - we describe crimes by the Schutzstaffel and Wehrmacht.Comparing Polish resistance against Nazi Germany to Nazi forces, repeated several times,seems to have been aimed at provoking other editors.
• Here[43] in an article about anti-Polish sentiment Icewhiz removes a racist insult used as an example(sourced to BBC website) about "Poles sucking antisemitism with their mother's milk", stating "lack of context in that Polish complicity as well as direct responsibility for Jewish deaths is not discussed"

• Finally, Icewhiz provocative editing is not limited to Polish-only topics.

In this article about Lehi, a terrorist organization calling for anihiliation of Arab people, which sought alliance with Nazi Germany, Icewhiz has tried to delete information about it's links with Nazis[44], and claimed that lead about this terrorist organization should have views "of those who justify it"[45]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I agree that that the genocide against Jewish population was far more total and immediate than against ethnic Poles(which was foreseen on a longer timescale in around 15 years). Neverthless UN and Nuremburg Trials classify actions of Nazis against Poles as genocide, and naming mass murdered women and children as "elites and dissenters" seems like a weird, highly POV claim.Icewhiz seems to have enough knowledge to know it is untrue.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.