Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Holocaust in Poland		1 June 2019	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Holocaust in Poland

Initiated by Icewhiz (talk) at 22:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Poeticbent
• diff of notification Loosmark
• diff of notification Volunteer Marek

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• AE vs. VM referred to ARBCOM
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendment request: Eastern Europe (May 2019)

Statement by Icewhiz

Starting after this perplexing AfD, I have been cleaning dubious sources, notably Mark Paul ("ignoble ungrateful Jew" myth ,RSN, RfC) which were used in hundreds of articles. I have also fixed:

1. Loosmark sock (+Poeticbent), IcewhizFix - Describing a Polish pogrom against Jews, as Jewish oppression of Poles followed by Germans killing Jews - see AE determining this was a hoax. Note VM loudly asserted restoring this was non-actionable. Also see: Dr. Morris S. Whitcup on Wikipedia's articles
2. Poeticbent+Loosmark sock, IceWhizFix - Local poles burn 600-2000 Jews alive in barn, described as Jewish oppression of Poles followed by Germans killing Jews.
3. Poeticbent,IceWhizFix - extermination camp for Jews, described as "intended to kill Jews and Poles from all nearby towns and villages" (Polish citation in article: "Jews".)
4. PoeticbentBiałystok,PoeticbentHistoryOfTheJews,PoeticbentCommons - IceWhizFixBiałystok,IceWhizFixHistoryOfTheJews,IceWhizFixComms - Jewish welcoming banner in 1939 image captions (extended discussion, caption offwiki) - actually election notice to the People's Council of Western Belarus in 1941
5. Loosmark sock,IceWhizFix - describes the "Polish operation" (one of multiple NKVD national sweeps) as "the genocide of Poles in the Soviet Union", misstating named historians and using a dubious source. Contrast academic sources:.

The wide scope and nature indicate these aren't innocent mistakes, but deliberate distortion/denial rising to WP:HOAX. The small editor pool involved prior to 2018 did not remove such content, and tolerated widespread us of sources that clearly fail WP:RS

Volunteer Marek (VM), add little new content (see last article 1.5K with single bareurl primary source), has been reverting and stonewalling corrections.

VM's conduct: (see also referred AE)

1. Despite requests to stop,[1][2] VM has hounded me. Between 15 and 30 May he has followed me to some 40 mainspace articles. While some articles he had edited before (often many years in the past), multiple other articles are either newly created by myself or articles VM has never edited.interactiontool 15-30May
2. VM has restored/inserted material on Jews/communists not supported by citations: "Soviet-armed Jewish militiamen helped NKVD agents send Polish families into exile"[3][4] (not in source) or against MOS:ETHNICITY(lead) "was a Polish communist official of Jewish background trained...[5]
3. VM has restored content challenged as failing V - without checking the source (which does not support the text). See AE (deemed too complex for AE) on content apparently copied from Mark Paul.
4. WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS: [6][7][8][9][10][11]
5. considers sourced on-topic descriptions of antisemitism in Poland as: "It's a COATRACK for the whole disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV into this article.".[12]
6. WP:PROXYING Loosmark, fails verification: [13][14]
7. WP:PROFRINGE/WP:UNDUE - op-eds in right-wing media/blog by far-right activist/historian: [15][16][17]
8. WP:BLPSPS: [18].

Editors restoring content challenged as failing verification (particularly when from a banned sock(WP:PROXYING)), are expected to verify. However -

1. VM has restored content contradicted by the cited sources. If a source says "white" an editor shouldn't be saying "black". This is not a "content dispute", but rather WP:CIR. e.g. [19], describing this as "excuse to remove well sourced text" - besides most of the content not being in the source (refugees angled to go to the US for standards of living), some of it is refuted page 72 in citation.
2. In other cases he spent all of 1 minute - 07:00,06:59 different article in examining content challenged on being from a banned sock, failing V (+SYNTH, NPOV, and MOS).
3. VM has openly admitted he has restored content failed V without verifying - see statement - I verified the content (in particular, thousands of properties) was not in Kopciowski.
4. As may be see in this discussion - VM seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing (or as a bargaining chip?) for content clearly not written in the source.

Beyond personal attacks in this forum, I would highlight:

1. VM's point7 - "sources are peer reviewed" - oped by an at-the-time(1997) phd-student in a newspaper (rp.pl, open copy maybe here),[20] or the at-the-time(2006) 1-man-website run by IWP student,[21] are not peer-reviewed. WP:CIR or deliberately false.
2. VM's comment here at ARBCOM - doubling-down on "he is insisting that we include that a person was Polish in the lede (this in the case of people who were both Polish and Jewish). I am saying, leave both out. See the double standard?". Lets apply this to Chuck Schumer: "Charles Ellis Schumer (/ˈʃuːmər/; born November 23, 1950) is an American politician serving as the senior United States Senator from New York". This is counter to WP:MOSETHNICITY, and a deeply offensive and prejudicial suggestion, others have been indeffed for such.
3. Referring to a "weird obsession with shitting on Poland"[22] - are Holocaust victims killed by Poles "shit"?

Refactored.Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

references
References

Statement by Volunteer Marek

User is way over 750 words, once user has trimmed the statement, they can remove this. If it is not fixed, the count will be adjusted to 750 manually by a clerk.

Why is Icewhiz listing User:Loosmark, an account that was banned... NINE FREAKING YEARS AGO, as a party in this case? Why is Icewhiz listing User:Poeticbent, a user who has stopped editing over a year ago, as a party in this case? Both of these listing seems like a bad attempt at prejudicing the case, and WP:GAMEing the request? Why not list users who are actually currently active in the area? I would like to immediately point out a very glaring fact about the way that Icewhiz presents this request. He has an opening paragraph about "Holocaust denial/distortion in Poland". He then lists some diffs from a couple editors (Loosemark and Poeticbent) who are no longer active on Wikipedia - and who obviously are not going to respond. Only I am. Let's put aside for the moment the question of whether these two editors' actions actually do represent this "distortion" Icewhiz is talking about. What he does then is have a separate section entitled "VM's conduct". Notice that he does NOT directly accuse ME of "Holocaust denial/distortion". He ... just insinuates it. Via a bullshit non-sequitur. "Here, first I'll list some problematic users. Then I'll list another user and hope that readers will infer that this guy is also problematic". Hey Icewhiz - if you ARE accusing me of "Holocaust denial/distortion" then 1) Fuck. You. and 2) have the fucking guts to say it outright rather than insinuating it like a sleazy weasel. Are you? This way of presenting the request is horribly and utterly sleazy, dishonest and scummy. Either he is accusing me or he isn't. If he is, he needs to fucking say it. If he's not, he needs to make that clear as well (and strike that implicit accusation) as that's one helluva serious charge. Indeed, making such an accusation without backing it up is grounds for an indef ban on its own. And if he is accusing me of something like that then he, and whoever takes the charge serious can go to fucking hell. You don't get to lie about people like that. I have not done anything remotely justifying such an accusation and neither Icewhiz nor anyone else here really knows anything about me, what my actual ethnic background is, what happened to MY FUCKING FAMILY during WW2 and the Holocaust or anything related. THIS is why I am using strong language here because it is more than justified. If this is the accusation then this fucking asshole needs to be banned. Now. As to specific allegations against myself. Please read my response carefully. The person being accused and attacked always has a tougher job then the person making the accusation, especially when those accusations are false and absurd. As a result I do hope that the ArbCom members do me the courtesy of reading the text below: 1. I have not "hounded" Icewhiz. If anything, it's the other way around. I've been on Wikipedia since 2005. I have edited this, as well as many other topic areas. For the vast majority of articles that Icewhiz falsely accuses me of "hounding" him to (per the wmflabs link) I have edited them first, basically because I've been around far longer than he. This is a completely bogus, absurd, charge. Icewhiz likes to pretend that any challenge to his edits - most of which are deeply problematic, involving misrepresentation of sources and BLP vios - constitute "stalking". Nonsense. Problem editors always try to pretend that they're being "stalked" when their POV edits get undone. I am far from the only editor who has undone Icewhiz's edit most of which violate policy and epitomize WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TEND in this topic area. 2.1. The diff Icewhiz provides is from ... July 2018!!! Almost a year ago! I hardly remember it. But checking the source and the talk page discussion, Icewhiz is making a false claim. The source does indeed support the text, and the support for it is on page 63, just like the inline citation says. Icewhiz is making stuff up. Please see the talk page discussion which occured at the time [23]. Regardless this is a content dispute from over a year ago. 2.2. The second diff Icewhiz provides is more recent one [24]. This came up at the recent WP:AE and at User:El_C's page here. Icewhiz made a very very serious, and FALSE accusation against me, which frankly, deserved an indef ban for him. The situation was explained to him repeatedly, including by El_C here, here, here and [25]. What happened was: Icewhiz blanked most of the article (six paragraphs), involving content that's been in it for eight years. I undid this revision and asked him to explain on talk. Somewhere in those six paragraphs, the subject's ethnicity was mentioned. Let me stress this part: Icewhiz did not make an objection to the ethnicity being included when he made the blanking. He also DID NOT raise the question on talk. The first time he brought it up was at WP:AE, when he made the odious accusation against me that I was "Jew marking". Actually, I couldn't give a fig one way or another whether the subject's ethnicity is mentioned (it's kind of, sort of, relevant, because some sources claim the subject was targeted for persecution on account of being Jewish, but it's a rather minor detail). I actually removed the ethnicity myself here. Yet Icewhiz is bringing this UP AGAIN here, AFTER 1) it's been explained to him that removing six paragraphs of text from an article that's been in there for eight years requires an explanation on talk, 2) it's been explained to him that his characterization of my edits was false, 3) I removed the subject ethnicity myself, 4) he was warned about making false accusations against other editors. This shows how tendentious, and, well, dishonest, Icewhiz's approach to editing is. His concerns - which he failed to express and instead invented it ex nihilo in midst of a WP:AE - has been addressed, he has been told his characterization was false yet he persists in this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is not good faithed request. 3. This is again a completely dishonest and false characterization of what happened. Another user blanked a bunch of sourced text with an offensive personal attack in the edit summary. I undid it. Subsequently that user was indefinetly banned [26] (and after more shenanigans, had their talk page access revoked) by User:TonyBallioni for making false accusations (exactly of the sort that Icewhiz is now making). The diff that Icewhiz provides has to do with something else. Icewhiz falsely claimed that the relevant text was PLAGIARISM. This was an obvious attempt to WP:GAME and misuse policy since the text had the sources clearly listed and attributed. So it could not have been PLAGIARISM. Icewhiz then claimed instead it was a COPYVIO. Yet, it's clear from the quoted text that the text in the article is substantially paraphrased from the original. That's exactly what I'm explaining in #6 here. As to checking the source, that too is false - one source was quoted in another source, which is the one that was used in the article and I did indeed check that, although for the sake of transparency and honesty I did state that I did not have access to the primary source the source used cited. For Icewhiz to try and turn this around and present it as something nefarious is just sleazy. I should also emphasize that this had already come up at the relevant WP:AE. None of the admins actually had a problem with this particular action. Sandstein had a problem with some *other stuff* I said about Icewhiz, but even those conclusions of his were strongly disputed by admins User:Newyorkbrad, User:TonyBallioni, User:Black Kite, User:Zero0000, User:Drmies, User:Bishonen and User:Fish_and_Karate. For Icewhiz to bring this up AGAIN, after the accusation was already rejected by admins at WP:AE just goes to show how WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT his approach is. 4. I'll get to the "aspersions" in a moment. 5. Yes, in this case Icewhiz was using an article about one particular anti-semitic phenomenon (Jewish figurines sold in some Polish souvenir shops) to engage in WP:COATRACK generalizations about Poles as a group, basically to push his fucked up POV of "Poles are a bunch of anti semites" which has been the POV he's been engaged in pushing for the past two years (of course there are anti semitic Poles, and there's plenty of anti-semitism in Poland, just like most of Europe and even US - Icewhiz's POV however goes far beyond that and displays some weird obsession with shitting on Poland and portraying it in... not even "mostly", but actually "exclusively", negative light. 6. I'm not "PROXYING" for anyone, least of all for someone who hasn't edited for eight years and who nobody can remember. I simply undid Icewhiz's blanking of material and sources, which he did with false edit summaries. 7. The author in question, while he is right wing, is a published historians, the sources are peer reviewed, and his reliability has been brought up at WP:RSN before and for these reasons he's been generally deemed reliable. In all cases of course, his views should be attributed. More importantly, Icewhiz's edit summaries, describing removed text as "minority viewpoint" EVEN WHEN there were like five other historians cited for the same text was prima facie absurd. Which is why I undid his edit. 8. This one too has been repeatedly explained to Icewhiz (for example here) but in a typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT fashion, Icewhiz is trying to bring it up again. You have one letter to the editor, by person A, criticizing person B, for praising person C (the article is NOT about persons B or C). You have another letter to the editor, by person B, responding to person A. Icewhiz pretends that including the second letter is "self published". But he has no problem including the first letter even though it's exactly the same kind of source. Because the first one fits his POV and the second one doesn't. This highlights the cynical and dishonest approach to citing Wikipedia policies applied by Icewhiz. On top of that, the whole freaking section in that BLP, which was "Criticism of OTHER academics" was one massive BLP vio and I removed it, both "SPS" sources and all. This is another piece of information that Icewhiz sneakily omits here - I actually removed the self published sources from the BLP! This manipulative presentation of the situation is dishonest and appears to try and rely on admins gullibility and/or unwillingness (or frankly, laziness) to actually check the diffs. @SilkTork: - there's barely any relationship with that ANI, Icewhiz is just trying to fabricate a link so he can falsely link me to some recently (rightfully) banned problem user (whom I am not even familiar with). My only involvement in that ANI was a single comment I made at 6:20, May 23 (I can't provide a diff because of the oversight'ing on that page) in which I agree that a person's ethnicity does not generally belong in the lede. In other words, I *am agreeing* with User:Jayjg, who brought up the issue in the first place. My only point was that even MOS:ETHNICITY aside, it's stupid to include these folks' ethnicities in the first sentence, since these ethnicities can be easily inferred from the sentence itself (one guy worked for the POLISH Office of something or other, the guy was a member of the JEWISH Council of something or other). The difference between me and Icewhiz here is that while he objects to stating that a person was Jewish, he is insisting that we include that a person was Polish in the lede (this in the case of people who were both Polish and Jewish - and both individuals were generally "bad"). I am saying, leave both out. See the double standard? That's as far as my response to Icewhiz accusations for now. It's already long for the simple reason that it is much tougher to defend yourself against false accusations than it is to make them. I hope to elaborate on the problems with Icewhiz's edits in this topic area shortly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC) (Redacted) Removed personal attack. Clerk action. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

I am completely uninvolved. Neither AE nor ArbCom seem to me to be currently appropriate venues for this. The appropriate venue would be ANI, so all efforts at resolution have not been attempted, and therefore I recommend that ArbCom decline the case. The case belongs at ANI, and if the diffs check out more or less as Icewhiz claims, then the appropriate remedy or remedies are rather simple: A topic ban of VM (and possibly the other two editors) from Poland-Holocaust, and possibly also a one-way IBan with Icewhiz (or at least a final warning not to stalk him). And sanctions on the other two editors as appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth

I'm just going to link to my statement from a month and a half ago - here for diffs and documentation. For a more recent problem - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? where just trying to get basic information about a query takes several requests that get drowned out by the fighting between involved editors. I could bring more (plenty more) diffs, but I'll end with my statement from that clarification request:

"It's not just the troubling/sloppy sourcing that's occurring (and these are likely the tip of the iceberg), it's the constant battleground mentality that affects most editors in this area. One person adds something that's sloppily sourced, the other side reverts and screams bloody murder on the talk page, but then that second side adds something else that's also sloppily sourced and then the first side starts screaming bloody murder. And everything is accompanied by endless reverts ... there is not any way for third party editors who aren't invested in the conflict to actually contribute for any length of time because it's just so dreadfully draining. 1RR doesn't seem to help, because there are multiple editors on each "side" so ... the reverts just roll in and people who aren't on a side just give up and walk away - I've done it often enough." Ealdgyth - Talk 22:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork, yes, that’s also related. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

There's more to this complex conflict than just Icewhiz and VM but... I'm right in the middle of moving and just do not have the time to devote to digging up diffs and dealing with it. The behavior on display here in this request is just an example of what happens when a conflict arises in the area - it rapidly becomes a battleground. All that does is drive editors like myself (who are not Polish or Jewish and who have at least some passing familiarity with the sources and historical methods) right out of editing in the area. I really doubt that ANI will be of any help, but I can't dredge up the time to find the diffs and lay out the reasons for accepting this beyond what I've posted above. Look at the RS noticeboard discussion and the ANI, and you'll see that it's not just the two named editors above, but a whole host of editors, some of them probably socks of banned editors, some of them SPAs, some of them definitely here to push a narrative that's not mainstream. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

And ... @Tatzref ... it's not "Laurence Weinbaum ... his essay in The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust (New York University Press, 2000) ". The CORRECT citation is the Laurence Weinbaum (2000). "Defrosting History: the Restitution of Jewish Property in Eastern Europe". In Avi Becker (ed.). The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust. New York University Press. pp. 83–110.. The essay is entitled "Defrosting History: the Restitution of Jewish Property in Eastern Europe" and the whole collected work is titled The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust. (This is not the first time this has been pointed out to Tatzref). And it was reviewed here without any major issues. My own opinion on the constant sloppy referencing is that too many editors are relying on google and not actually reading the whole work. (I'm just going to leave the whole "but the mouthpiece of the World Jewish Congress, an organization with an aggressive restitution agenda" aside as restitution claims are only part of the WJC's remit) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

There is indeed a series of contentious disputes between Icewhiz (this is just him, no one else) and 4 or more other users who share a common interest in Polish history, including the Holocaust. I am not counting strange red-linked accounts and obvious SPA who are common in this subject area. I am also not counting some other users, like myself, who occasionally take part in editing these pages. From time to time, one of these presumably Polish users loses his or her temper during these disputes, tells something inappropriate about Icewhiz, and receives a topic ban. No wonder, given how meaningless some of these discussions are [27]. Unfortunately, one of these users was indeed Poeticbent who I knew as a very good, polite and productive contributor. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

I'm the one who closed the AE request. I am also the only admin who made attempts at addressing the request, feeling it was a 50-50 about whether this should go to Arbitration, instead. The other three admins did not, however, share such reservations, with all of them recommending it should be referred to Arbitration. So I chose to close accordingly in light of such consensus. Note that I am not familiar and have not reviewed the ANI, but my impression (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's at a standstill and impasse. I, therefore, recommend the Committee to accept this case. El_C 05:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Members of the Committee: I do not envy you! El_C 08:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, I thought ANI (like AE) was unable to resolve this dispute — I stand corrected. But I still feel an Arbitration case is due here. Because the problem ANI is likely to face if this were to be brought before it stem from the sheer complexity of the evidence involved. Yes, even if the remedies themselves might, at a glance, seem fairly straight forward. But maybe I can't see the forest from the trees. El_C 17:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

On the mainspace, I had added DS to History of the Jews in Poland et al., so that has already been in place weeks before the AE request was filed. El_C 20:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

User is way over 750 words, once user has trimmed the statement, they can remove this. If it is not fixed, the count will be adjusted to 750 manually by a clerk.

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. Ugh. This is a problem with many angles. As someone who has been involved in this topic area for ~15 years, and interacted with pretty much all involved editors, here is my analysis. 1. Polish-Jewish history, particularly WWII-one and thereabouts, is subject to extensive and ongoing historical research (I'll note that in real life I am an academic, albeit a sociologist, not a historian, but I can speak about those issues as someone who at least co-published at least one history-focused peer reviewed article). Within it, there are several camps, some of which, with academics at professor rank, effectively calling one another names and accusing one another (or their 'camp') of major bias. Icewhiz description of one of those camps is correct - as long as one accepts that it comes from another camp... which in turn is described rather negatively in turn. While there is some mainstream 'center'; the content problem we face, however, is that the 'more extreme' camps both have some more or less reliable scholars, and the related discussions often involve inconclusive discussions of whether some author/source is an expert, fringe. All of this is further complicated by a number of issues, such as political interference (ex. both Polish and Israeli research has a state-sponsored agenda), and political correctness (as in, associations of antisemitism, anti-Polish attitude, and the imperfect balance between those - i.e. accusing person of one of those attitudes carries a bit more negative connotations than accusing them of the other one; I'll let you work out which is more 'damning'. Not all bigots are equal...). Anyway, the point is that while it is easy to weed out unreliable non-academic sources (ex. far right, nationalistic press, etc.) it is much more challenging to decide if a professor, who still teaches, publishes and generally is not pelted with tomatoes or ostracized by his peers or neighbors, is an unreliable anti-something or just biased within bounds acceptable by NPOV. 2. Editors involved: first, why are we talking about Loosmark, banned since 2010? second, Poeticbent, who retired in early 2018? This deserves more of a note, because Poeticbent was the most prolific editor in Polish-Jewish topics, easily measured by ~1000+ articles he started, hundreds of which ended up at DYK, and a few as GA. For example, he wrote probably 75% of not more entries and content on WWII-era Jewish ghettos. Following a very random and unfair IMHO AE ruling based on a single diff perceived as violating NPA for which he received a 6-month topic ban, with no prior history of topic bans, blocks or even warnings (context: [28] and here), he retired, saying effectively 'if this is the reward I get from the community after so much work, bye'. This is a testament to the misguided cowboy random lottery ban that is AE, and to how certain admins should be politely asked to move to a different mop'n'bucket area. It also offers a constructive option for this ArbCom (given that Poeticbent is somehow a 'party' to it) - this topic ban should be reviewed and rescinded, with an apology issued. This could bring a prolific content creator back. And what is a better outcome than getting another 1000+ quality articles in this topic area? third, Icewhiz. Per his own statement, he joined this topic area in December 2017. In my view, his input has been sometimes valuable (for example, per his diff, he saved an article from AfD; while I was the nominator of that, in hindsight I concur keeping it was the right choice). But it is also a fact that until he joined this topic area it has been quite stable for years. Since, it has indeed become a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Now, it is hardly Icewhiz's sole doing - as I said, it takes 'two to tango', and there are quite a few other editors active in this topic ara than just him and VM (and the two banned/retired editors, eh?). IMHO Icewhiz's input is valuable as it represents a viewpoint from one of the 'camps' I mentioned in my previous paragraph that was indeed unfairly underrepresented, and I commend Icewhiz on improving the neutrality of the coverage in this area. However, it is also my view that he is unwilling to compromise with the 'other camp' editors. I describe such an attitude in this mini-essay. This lack of desire to compromise on his part, given that he is now one of the most active editors in this area, with likely thousands of edits to this topic area each month, is, IMHO, one of the main causes for this topic area to have become unstable in the past two years. Instead of balancing the coverage, many articles in that area keep swinging from one side (camp...) to the other, as unwillingness to compromise breeds likewise mentality 'on the other side' (again, see my essay). VM. To some degree, a mirror image of Icewhiz representing the views of 'another camp'. There are, of course, differences in attitude (VM seems to have more issues with NPA/CIV than Icewhiz) or history (VM has been involved in this topic area for much longer, and with generally no wiki conflicts prior to Icewhiz joining this topic area). 3. Diffs. accusation of hounding seems baseless, if two editors are very active in the same topic area and have watchlisted similar pages, well. And it's not like occasional glimpses at contributions of another editor are a faux pas. And since there's no evidence of any problematic interactions between them in other topic areas, well. I expect this tool would show similar results for me x Ice/VM, too, and ditto for a number of other editors in any combination. one person's "restored content not supported by references" is another's "restore blanket revert. Please explain specific concerns on talk" - WP:BRD, etc. If there would be persistent edit warring with one editor restoring content that is improperly referenced after this was pointed out on talk, it's one thing. But this? Sigh. Ditto for the prior diff, where content was removed without any explanation by Icewhiz. It is acceptable to restore it and ask another editor to explain the reason on the talk. Sigh again. (And lack of AGF, but that's normal in battleground areas - for both sides, of course). As far as I can tell, while VM restored content without being able to access the source, he AGF that another editor (Tatzref did so). And Icewhiz removed said content also without any indication he checked that particular source (Kopciowski). So, pot vs kettle match. this made me think about how is it different form accusation number 1? He can, he can't? But yes, NPA is a bit of a concern here. In my experience, Icewhiz is generally civil - through he does seem to have the tendency to simply ignore some comments and repeat his view again and again. This seems to frustrate some editors who may lose temper and resort to less then civil commentary. I don't endorse neither approach to discussion, but I am unsure to what degree this can be prevented. I fail to see an issue here, outside of slight relevance to prior point. Restoring edit by blocked editors is permissible if one thinks they are correct. And one could ask why did Icewhiz call this a hoax? Through mentioning admin diffs in edit summaries is a bit of a chilling effect on others. But if diffs can be provided for "you have been warned before by admins I believe about falsely claiming legit edits and text are "hoaxes"" (I am not aware of them, personally) it is something that might be worth nothing. The other diff here seems perfectly fine (civil edit summary, helpful c/e). A few of those are not reliable and I've removed them myself. But Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), for example, is perfectly acceptable (for a mainstream newspaper) IMHO. Regular minor content/source that hardly is something ArbCom should bat an eya at IMHO. In the talk discussion, I disagreed that Glaukopis is a BLPSPS. It's a minor but academic Polish journal. But I am also not sure if this is due, and I am not restoring this - and neither did VM who after some discussion as can be seen on talk Talk:Antony_Polonsky#BLP_vio agreed to remove it and related content and was commended for that by an uninvolved party who offered a third opinion there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC) 4. Final thought. Would topic banning both Ice and VM solve the issue here? I dislike bans, but it would be nice to see peace and quiet return to this topic area again. But perhaps some conflict is preferable to lack of neutrality, as in the end, IMHO this topic area as improved despite, and perhaps even due, to the occasional conflict between those two editors (and few others). As I suggested above, the most constructive course of action, instead of banning anyone, could be, gasp, to anti-ban Poeticbent and invite him back with an apology, so that he could resume his mass production of relevant articles and DYKs. His loss has hurt us all, and his return would be the only clear win for this topic area I can imagine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo

I recommend accepting this case because of the intensity of the dispute and the inability of AE to deal with such a broad issue. The "Polish death camp" controversy article had massive edit wars in early 2018 and the actual issue just keeps boiling under the surface and popping up in different articles (historians, historical figures, organisations, politics etc.) What got this topic into spotlight was the February 2018 Polish Act on the Institute of National Remembrance so the edit-warring in the aforementioned article would be a good starting point. There also was some nasty off-site trolling by someone pretending to be Tatzref (talk · contribs) because of edits in this topic area. I would add some of the editors from the original death camp controversy article as parties, and most of them have had the some dispute in several other articles as well. --Pudeo (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be further spelled out that it's just not Holocaust in Poland, but Jewish-Polish issues during World War II generally. These articles had a lot of similar disputes:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, Bielski partisans, Koniuchy massacre, Naliboki massacre, Blue Police, Paradisus_Judaeorum etc. with many editors participating in all of them (not just Marek and Icewhiz). --Pudeo (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Paul August

I think a length exception ought to be granted to Piotrus, so as to accommodate his complete statement. Paul August ☎ 19:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

@Katie I respectfully disagree. To save space, please read this discussion with was inspired by the current case. It discusses the fake description of the image, which represents Jews as pro-Soviet "fifth column" in Poland, and which implicitly justified the actions of Poles. You may also be interested to note the opinion of Ealdgyth on that matter.

In my opinion, the primary problem here is not a conflict between two users. The root of this conflict is the worrying tendency of admins to focus on behavioural issues and ignoring the cases when minor or even major misinterpretations of sources are committed in attempt to push some minority POV. It would be incorrect to blame only VM or Poeticbent in that: the admins created a situation when one can safely treat sources liberally as soon as proper decorum is observed. Based on my own experience, I can say that it takes enormous time and efforts to figure out a real origin of fake information in Wikipedia and to eradicate it. It is a really worrying tendency, because Wikipedia has tons of mirrors that give a wide circulation to those fake facts. Usually, I encounter source misinterpretation just by accident, that means there is potentially a lot of fake facts in Wikipedia. Do admins care? No. "You found an error - just fix it" - our policy says. However, what if this error is being constantly re-added by some polite and experienced users who act according to a local consensus? How do admins approach this problem? "This is just a content dispute" - they say. "This appears to be between XXXX and YYYY", - they respond.

This approach created a situation when Wikipedia content, at least, in some sensitive areas covered by DS, became a hostage of emotional stability of the parties involved in the dispute. If one party loses their temper, the second party's POV wins no matter whose interpretation of sources was correct. Do you admins really believe this state of things leads to improvement of Wikipedia?

Taking into account that Wikipedia is not a social network where emotional comfort of users is a primary concern of admins, but an encyclopedia that is supposed to provide a good quality content, the correct approach to this and similar conflict would be:

1. To completely ignore the diffs where the parties insult each other, because really experiences users are experienced enough to avoid really outrageous behaviour: in my opinion, neither VM nor anybody else committed any really bad personal attack.
2. To go into the details of this content dispute, and to figure out who exactly misinterpreted the sources, and if this misinterpretation was deliberate or accidental. I propose to assume both parties are biased (everybody is biased, including myself), and, taking into account that all involved parties are very experienced, to consider every misinterpretation deliberate until the opposite is not proven.
3. If misinterpretations are confirmed, the evidences must be presented that the user who committed them had been properly informed about that, and that they still re-inserted wrong information into the articles.
4. The users responsible for misinterpretations must be just warned (no additional actions are needed for the first time), however, any similar action of that kind must be severely punished (prolonged or indefinite topic ban).
5. If admins have not enough time for the analysis of the evidences, I suggest to appoint several experienced users who will do this job for them, and to return to this issue later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Tatzref

This arbitration request is misplaced. It is based on the faulty premise that (presumably) Polish-background Wiki editors and sources are biased and unreliable. In fact, Icewhiz has been involved in biased, unreliable and even fraudulent postings. Icewhiz is not part of the solution, rather a large part of the problem.

Last year Icewhiz and K.e.coffman concocted a bogus attempt to discredit a major book, Sowjetische Partisanen, by historian Bogdan Musial, published by a renowned German publishing house (Schoningh, 2009) and hailed by Yehuda Bauer, a leading Holocaust historian, as “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia (Yad Vashem Studies, vol. 38, no. 2). The book was removed from the “Bielski Brothers” article several times as allegedly “fringe” and “SPS” (self-published sources).

Icewhiz relies on Joanna Michlic, a minor historian, in an attempt to “prove” that Musial and Chodakiewicz are nationalist hacks. No major Holocaust historian has paid any heed to what Michlic thinks about these authors. Chodakiewicz’s monograph, The Massacre in Jedwabne, is one of very few publications of hundreds on Jedwabne cited and relied on by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press, 2010). Joanna Michlic has herself been exposed as a biased author who specializes in detecting alleged antisemitism at every turn. See for example, Joshua Zimmerman, The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945 (Cambridge University Press, 2015), at p. 103–104.

Recently Icewhiz has been championing Laurence Weinbaum as a reliable source, although his essay in The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust (New York University Press, 2000) is replete with flagrant errors (p.101), which I detailed under Talk: The History of Jews in Poland. Weinbaum is not an independent historian, but the mouthpiece of the World Jewish Congress, an organization with an aggressive restitution agenda, for whom he works as a research and editorial officer. The book was edited by Avi Beker, Director of International Affairs, WJC and Executive Director of the Israel Office. It is clearly a POV effort. In order to bolster Weinbaum’s bogus claim that the Polish authorities blocked the return of Jews from DP camps in Germany, Icewhiz engaged in a flagrant misrepresentation, claiming “The “grossly discrimanatory” Polish act was criticized by US president Truman,” whereas according to the very source he cited, Truman was criticizing certain provisions of the 1948 Displaced Persons Act.

Icewhiz has also been disruptive in purely Polish-related matters. He recently deleted all the edits I made to the Canadian Polish Congress article on the stated pretext: “We prefer reliable secondary sources over the website of the subject.” When I restored them he accused me of edit warring on my Talk page. When I asked him to explain why he was removing neutral information for which I had provided third party sources, he failed to do so.

Statement by Risker

Just a note in passing that there seem to be very conflicting instructions from the arbcom clerks about word limits for statements, and extensions to those word limits. Even as someone who's spent years following these cases, I can't tell who is and is not permitted extensions, or whether all the extensions were withdrawn and now everyone has to cut back to the standard 750 words. Could an arbitrator please clarify if there is anyone who is permitted a longer submission and, if so, what the actual restriction is? Thank you.

Statement by Xx236

@Paul Siebert - do you see only Polish nationalistic bias here? Many edits by Icewhiz are biased anti-Polish. Icewhiz pretends to be an expert in Polish history, but he doean't read Polish, he uses computer translations of Polish language texts, which he sometimes misunderstands.

Fighting Polish nationalism may remove any Polish editors interested in history. Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Holocaust in Poland: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Icewhiz has requested a word limit extension, which is granted to 750 words. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The increased word count has been extended to all participants. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Volunteer Marek: you are currently over 2,000 words in your statement please reduce your statement to 750 words or less.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Piotrus: you are currently over 1,500 words in your statement please reduce your statement to 750 words or less.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fix ping @Piotrus: --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've removed the image in Icewhiz's statement per clerks-l --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Icewhiz: you are over 1700 words please trim your statement to 750 words. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Risker: Obviously I'm no longer an Arb, but what has been told to us is all people have 750 words on this case request only. I collapsed the sections because they are excessively over (mostly double) the limit. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• User:Piotrus has requested a further extension here. It has been passed to the committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust in Poland: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Is there a relationship to the current ANI discussion: MOS:ETHNICITY_on_articles_about_Polish_Jews? SilkTork (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

As there appear to be only two people involved in this - Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek, I think this could be sorted quicker and easier on ANI, perhaps by an interaction ban and/or topic ban. Only if the community are unable to solve this problem should ArbCom get involved, and as there doesn't appear to have been that community discussion yet, I am inclining toward a decline. Meanwhile, I shall give Volunteer Marek a warning for the personal attack on Icewhiz. SilkTork (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oooookay. Yes, I know arbcom makes everyone a little frazzled, but the sweary stompy back-and-forthery is not helping, please rein it in, guys. (Edit summaries included.) @Icewhiz:, I agree with the confusion expressed by some other commenters about focus - your requests starts with a number of diffs dating back to 2011, the latest 2017, by a blocked editor and an inactive one (Note for readers who are spacey like me: Poeticbent's last edits were in May 2018, not 2019.) with the comment that these were issues "until 2018-9". Could you please be specific (but brief!) about what aspects of this are current or ongoing? (Separately, unless you have specific evidence of relevant interactions, I'd drop the "proxying" stuff for now and focus on issues that are current and actionable. But then, this is my personal preference; I don't generally consider claims of "proxying". People can get their editing ideas from wherever they like.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Leaning decline, because this appears to be between Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek. If so, I think ANI should have a shot at it first. And I endorse SilkTork's warning, Marek – dial it back. Katie^talk 18:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)