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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by MJL

Proposed principles

Consensus

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of respectful discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Consensus develops from participation and agreement of the parties involved in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Combination of: WP:RFAR/Dalmatia#Consensus, WP:ARBMAC2#Consensus, and WP:EEML#Consensus. I'll make more if there is positive feedback for this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process completely failed in this case, so it's hardly worth advertising. François Robere (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Battleground conduct

2) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is one team of editors, all working toward the same purpose. Editors should not treat editors with whom they disagree as belonging to another "side" or an opposing group. Bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied word-for-word from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop#Battleground conduct. Credit to Levivich who adapted it from Gun control#Battleground conduct. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Community encouraged (sourcing)

1) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC regarding the best practices for sourcing within the Antisemitism in Poland topic area. In particular, it is suggested interested editors within the community work to develop an explanatory supplement to the provisions of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for Jewish-Polish historiography.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I've launched a number of RfCs on sourcing, I feel the community has been exhausted so to speak. Therefore - I have been fairly judicious in opening RfCs. RSN for the topic area is also fairly bad - most discussions (particularly on a non-English source) end up with very little outside input - with mainly involved editors commenting (leading to the same deadlock on the article talk pages). It seems everybody is willing to throw a comment at Fox News (or various American media outlets) - but generally there's little response at RSN for many other topics. My personal feeling here is that the underlying problem is lack of outside involvement on the one hand, coupled with a "voting bloc" that's willing to !vote on sources in a manner that is not in accordance with WP:V and WP:RS. Known Holocaust distorters or self-published sources really shouldn't be up for discussion at all - yet they are, and receive non-negligible support in a manner that's not commensurate to Wikipedia policy on sourcing. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibly relevant - WP:HISTRS (essay). Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Worked from Gamaliel and others as well as Macedonia 2. This is an alternative to two of the proposed principles by Icewhiz below. Kindest regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking about something like this. We should have a page where we list various authors/publishers that have been seen as controversial, list the RSN/FRINGEN/etc. discussion in the past, and try to reach a consensus on whether or with what qualifications such sources can be used. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally ArbCom should avoid encouraging RfCs, because anytime a case comes to ArbCom, an RfC at the conclusion will either end in no consensus or a super vote close that doesn’t really reflect the discussion but someone tried to make work so the exercise wouldn’t be done for nothing. Consensus on Wikipedia is first and foremost developed through practice, not RfCs. In areas like this, the committee dealing with the behaviour will ideally make the practice bit easier so a workable solution can be found. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think this is a unique subject area. Perhaps we need something like WP:MEDRS in the whole area of politics and history, but this should be decided by community. However, I would expect such RfC to fail because it contradict the letter (if not the spirit) of WP:RS. Probably the best approach is to simply improve our core WP:RS policy if there are any general problems there. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes and TonyBallioni: I'm rather surprised you both say the RFC would fail. My experience with writing WP:MOSMAC3 was nothing but a positive one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That's because it was a naming guidance (I agree: it is good to have it). But the remedies depend on the "findings of fact". I agree that the sourcing was an issue here, but not in the way Icewhiz is trying to present it. I think the actual issue was classic POV-pushing when someone (Icewhiz) dismisses sources he does not like because they are "Polish"/"journalistic"/written by historian X (but he criticized!)/whatever. This is covered by WP:NPOV, not WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Icewhiz: Well, the works that distort the holocaust may still be able to be used in accordance with WP:SELFSOURCE but not much else. I'm not saying you're completely right in the content part of this dispute, but a site-wide RFC would make things in the dispute much clearer in that regard. This is assuming it's worded right, but that can only happen if all the sides here come together in favor of having one with arbcom backing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions applicable

2) The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Eastern Europe for "[p]ages which relate to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly interpreted" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any article regarding the country of Poland, Polish historical figures, and Polish culture. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Eastern Europe case, not this one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I personally don't like the idea of going the discretionary sanctions route. However, if we do go down that route, I think it might be a good idea to restate that Polish topics still fall under WP:ARBEE. This is effectively the same thing passed under Manning naming dispute but instead applied to Motion: Eastern Europe and Balkans scope. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Care not to limit to geography too much: Belarus and the Ukraine were often mentioned alongside Poland, as were Germany, Russia, and the Czech Republic (or any of their respective ethnicities). François Robere (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Poland is the Westernmost country considered to be in Eastern Europe (besides the Czech Republic). This is the only reason I am proposing this specific clarification of Eastern Europe. The issues surrounding Polish articles also dwarfs that of many others by far, and so it would feel weird to specify the Czech Republic alongside Poland when the disruption has not been exactly equal. As for Germany, that is not a country in Eastern Europe, and it isn't the intent of this proposal to modify the scope of the preexisting sanction regime. The rest are farther east than Poland, so it would be pretty much pointless to specify them here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions also apply to..." François Robere (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions authorized

3) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages about Antisemitism or The Holocaust, both broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@TonyBallioni: Not to sound like a brat, but wouldn't this be the most effective method of applying WP:AC/DS here? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m pretty confident the Holocaust falls under a broad construction of Antisemitism. That, and I haven’t seen issues with people arguing over the extermination of the Roma or the death of Maximilian Kolbe. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Articles which were disrupted do cover topics like Soviet partisans of the Public execution in Dębica, which I don't think fall under either of those two topics... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Too narrow. See Piotrus's comment above. François Robere (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere and Piotrus: This remedy works in conjunction with my second proposed remedy which seeks to clarify Eastern Europe as to include Poland. See my comment above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: A funny question, but... can you explain what Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions actually do? I mean, I read that page, and... for the last 10 years EE topics which I edit regularly have been under EE, right? Well, I cannot tell the difference they've made, outside an occasional mention at AE - and even there I can't think of who was actually sanctioned because of DS. So, from my non-admin perspective, the impact of DS has been negligible if any. Hence I don't see what passing a new DS might do, particularly considering that almost all of the stuff we discuss here, broadly defined, is already under DS (since all of EE is under them, right?). So, no offense, all of this DS talk seems to me totally pointless, a rule equivalent of fig leaf that sure, sounds nice, but as no effect. I don't object to DS in general, I just don't see that having them or not does anything outside of making some admins (arbitrators) seem like they are doing something, that something being passing pointless rules that don't change anything with regards to how regular grunts, i.e. content editors, go about their daily business of actually creating content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Before this edit, you would not have been able to be taken to WP:AE. The ability to use AE as a process for editors not a party to WP:ARBEURO is one feature of WP:aC/DS. Alternatively, admins have the option of applying sanctions.page to relevant pages that fall within the DS regime's scope. Two good examples would be Donald Trump and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Try to edit either article, and you'll see page restrictions have been applied. Those page restrictions are appealable only to arbcom and not considered normal admin actions. Hope that helps! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Icewhiz

Proposed principles

Reliability of content

1) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work toward a resolution of the concern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not the best of prose, but the most important statement of principle this committee can make. François Robere (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

2) Statements in articles should be supported by citation to reliable sources and may not constitute original research. Appropriate sourcing is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial or their accuracy is disputed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Accuracy of sourcing

3) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rephrase 2nd sentence: "by quoting or citing a source, an editor assumes responsibility to the veracity of that quote or citation; that is, that it faithfully represents the content, context and - insofar as can be inferred from the text - intent of the source." François Robere (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Dubious sources

4) Editors should exercise caution and avoid the introduction of questionable sources promoting views considered to be extremist by reliable sources. Editors should avoid advocacy of use of such sources in article talk pages or noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Given Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Pitorus dubious sourcing, adapted from WP:QS.Icewhiz (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

What's more alarming that the actual use of self-published material by a Holocaust distorter or a religious foundation known for propagating antisemitism and conspiracy theories - is that some editors (e.g. below) are actually justifying use of such sources for "uncontroversial" content after they had been called out for this use. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We could start by having you practice what you preach. Here you use a trashy source (wpolityce) to attack a BLP. Here you try to use a guy who said that "Poles lack common-sense" and who, as editor of American Conservative published the white supremacist Steve Sailer. You do this to attack a BLP. Here you use a trashy right wing source (which you misrepresent) and, worse, an anti-semitic source, which you do however, represent accurately (that's not a good thing). You do this to attack a BLP. Here you use another low quality right wing source. You do this to attack a BLP. Here you try to use a guy who's an expert on ... catfish fishing, to source historical facts. I haven't gotten yet to the part where you try to use a celebrity gossip columnist to cite historical facts and attack people. Will dig that one out shortly.

It's a great principle. Why not try following it Icewhiz? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do not think anyone advocated using Questionable_sources. What does appear in these discussions are Biased_or_opinionated_sources and occasionally Self-published_sources. The former can be used. The latter have a limited usage as outlined in the policy, for example, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". However, if someone qualify as an expert can be disputable and may be decided by WP:Consensus. It also matters if a self-published work was cited and regarded as an appropriate source of information by other, better sources, such as published (not self-published) books. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz. Self-published - see above. As about a religious foundation, that falls under Biased_or_opinionated_sources. You can not blacklist biased sources just because they contradict your POV. If they can be viewed as "extremist sources" (I have no idea), this is an argument that the content is "undue" on the page, but it can be reliably published. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There's "opinion" and there's "bias". "Opinion" is acceptable; "bias" is questionable. François Robere (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this as far as general confirmation of Wikipediia policies, of course, but since Icewhiz mentions his 'evidence' on sources I use here (see my rebuttal), it should be noted that Icewhiz agenda here is clear - he wants an ArbCom ruling to use to win editing discussions he cannot get consensus for in a normal way. WP:QS/WP:QUESTIONABLE are defined as "extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion". The sources Icewhiz and some other editors in this topic area disagree on reliability of occasionally do not, IMHO, fit into this category. For example, one source me and Icewhiz tend to disagree on is the website by Anna Poray [1] described as "Personal Web site that provides information non-Jewish Polish citizens who have been recognized as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem for their efforts to save Jews during the Holocaust." It does not contain any controversial, redflag content but is indeed a SPS. Most of the time information on that website can be verified with other, more reliable sources, and it has never been shown to contain an error or a contradiction. It has been cited by some scholars etc. ex Rochelle G. Saidel in her book [2], or [3] by or Google Scholar citations by Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (who is a scholar Icewhiz uses as a source himself, and whose biographical article he started), note more results are out there for her work cited without the URL. So Tokarska-Bakir, a RS that Icewhiz accepts, can cite Poray but we cannot? Now, I agree that in principle we should use a more reliable source and so instead of restoring Poray I use more reliable sources (see evidence). The issue on hand is, IMHO, whether such sources, SPS but occasionally used by other scholars, and used for mundane, non-controversial statements of fact (not opinions) should be removed on sight with content they are used to support (solution preferred by Icewhiz) or can they be left, possibly tagged with {{Unreliable source?}} or {{Self-published inline}} until someone verifies and replaces them with a more reliable citation (solution preferred by me, per WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." as such usage IMHO falls within the limited acceptable use of low quality sources on Wikipedia). Let me stress, again, that we are talking about usage of such sources for uncontroversial statements of fact, and I would fully support instant removal of it and content they support for anything that is a WP:REDFLAG or even remotely controversial. Bottom line, this is a sound principle but it won't change a thing, as it still requires editorial judgement about whether a source is acceptable or not, and this not something AE tends to take a stance in. And discussions on RSN, Fringe or such yield little consensus. Let me stress, however, that I am fine with replacing Poray and like with better sources, and tagging her with an inline unreliable or SPS templates is fine. The problem in this topic area is not, however, the rare usage of such sources, which are almost never used for controversial claims, but rather, the removal of uncontroversial, but poorly sourced content, which damages the quality of an article by removing information relevant to the reader. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Assumption of unreliability, sourcing in sensitive topic areas

5) Editors should assume a source is unreliable, unless proven otherwise. In sensitive topic areas, particularly those in which conspiracy theories and hate discourse is prevalent, editors should devote extra care to maintaining high quality sourcing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Following WP:BURDEN/WP:ONUS, modified to WP:V/RS selection - in light of comments such as this which advocate use of questionable sources for "uncontroversial" content (in this particular case - anything but uncontroversial, however even if the content were uncontroversial - it would be an issue).Icewhiz (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do not think this is a good idea because people can discuss to nausea which topic area are "sensitive" and which are not. However, you are probably talking about this specific example [4], which looks to me as a public database. If one can reasonably argue that the author is a recognized authority in the field, I think it could used. But if not, this is not an RS and should not be used. On the other hand, according to the page, it just took a list of people from Yad Vashem which would be a reliable source? If Yad Vashem has its own online database with such info, one should simply use it. That one? My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

As a general matter I think this is terrible. We already have too many wikipolice trying to control what info our readers are allowed to see. We don't need more. It could possibly be ok as a type of consensus finding in a particular high-conflict area like the one in this dispute. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm otherwise uninvolved, and I don't really think I even need to state this... but this is a terrible idea. It contradicts WP:AGF and would otherwise have arbcom regulate the content of sourcing and be unilaterally interpreting WP:V/WP:NOENG. If certain sources need to be blacklisted, it's for the community to decide. The most arbcom should be doing is encouraging a discussion there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia works well enough, even in most controversial areas, without assumption of guilt for the sources (or editors who use them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is this could be interpreted as a "general" rule that could dictate the course of discussions, rather than as a guideline for individual editors to follow (which is not unjustified given the low quality of sources used by some). Statement #4 is preferable - it's more general, and more easily accepted. François Robere (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Poeticbent hoax creation

1) Poeticbent created a number of anti-Jewish hoaxes which have persisted for several years in articles in the topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per:

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Paul Siebert.

Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Refactored - added evidence link.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Also - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#Context of historical fabrications which frames these edits in terms of Polish public discourse. Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Stawiski is beyond an error - it was clearly deliberate and part of a pattern of other towns in which pogroms occurred around Jedwabne pogrom. GCB's restoring this was beyond the pale - and they were given a chance to self-revert after the scale of their misrepresentation was made crystal clear to them - they were taken to AE after they reverted a second time and refused to self-revert the WP:HOAX they introduced. As for the "welcoming message" - no sources support this was a "welcoming message" (and it is clearly an election message - per the text in the image itself). And no - we did not conclude the museum's caption was wrong in terms of year - I agreed Piotrus raised enough doubts regarding the season in the picture, however we did not reach any definitive conclusion either way. I was unable to find a source online matching Poeticbent's description (which, one should note, was very different in English from the caption he entered in Polish) - the closest I found is this wykop thread in which a banned user on wykop says "pure : # zydokomuna" - which still doesn't match the caption (and in any event is a clearly unusable source).Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, are you going to include the WP:HOAXes you created, like this one here where you just invented a BLP's words to smear them or your incorrect captioning of that photo [5] [6] [7] with "1941" instead of "1939", in your proposal (same photo you're using to accuse to Poeticbent)?

We have a source (musuem poster) stating 1941. We do not have a source stating 1939. Regardless - it is an election notice.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes we do. But we also know the image is from 1939 since that's when elections were held and in the photo it's clearly winter not summer. You more or less acknowledge this yourself. Source is wrong. Just like the source was wrong when Poeticbent - who presumably doesn't speak Yiddish - miscaptioned it the first time around based on that source. You're exaggerating his mistake and trying to downplay yours.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

From the image - [8] - fall if at all - no snow (Białystok gets cold Dec-Feb), still a few leaves on the trees. As for 1939 and the rest of your comment (and my preceding sentence) - please do read WP:OR. Stating this was a Jewish welcome banner is beyond an innocent "miscaption". Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Elections to the People's Assemblies of Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia - the election the sign is announcing happened in winter 1939. So yeah, the image is from 1939 not 1941. WP:HOAX man. Now, for Poeticbent's part - the source says "Na zdjęciach z lat tysiąc dziewięćset trzydzieści dziewięć - czterdzieści jeden Białystok jest miastem, które radośnie wita wojska sowieckie i czeka na nową władzę". Translation: "In photos from 1939-1941 Bialystok is a town which enthusiastically welcomes Soviet forces and awaits the new authorities". Same source says "To jedna z najciekawszych fotografii Białegostoku z czasów sowieckiej okupacji". Translation: "This is one of the more interesting photos from the Soviet occupation". Poeticbent apparently assumed that the source was describing this particular photograph, since it's present in the source. That's a bit ORish. But it's not WP:HOAX. Just like you, he seems to have been misled by a source which got it wrong.

(honestly, it's possible that the original photograph is itself a fake - Soviet propaganda or something. I'm not an expert on this stuff but the hammer and sickle sign looks wrong and the angle of the board doesn't line up with the ground, but who knows)

Now, can you explain why you created this WP:HOAX here? You changed "Polish Stalinists" (more precisely "Vistula Stalinists") in original essay to "American Jews" in Wikipedia article to make a WP:BLP subject appear anti-semitic even though he never said anything like that.

Perhaps a thorough review of your edits is in order to see if you've created any other WP:HOAXes like that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR - vs. [9] poster caption from Podlaskie Museum in Bialystok stating 1941. There may have been other elections in 39-41, and the sign looks to be very durable - could be up for a long while afterwards. The museum could be wrong - but even if the museum (or myself) are wrong - a wrong date is an entirely different area code from Jewish welcome banner. And lest we forget - Poeticbent captioned this in Polish as well - [10] as "To jedna z najciekawszych fotografii Białegostoku z czasów sowieckiej okupacji. W tle kościół Świętego Rocha, a wokół sierpy, młoty, pięcioramienne gwiazdy - symbole nowego porządku." - "This is one of the most interesting photographs of Bialystok during the Soviet occupation. In the background, the church of Saint Roch, and around the sickle, hammers, five-pointed stars - the symbols of the new order." - nothing Jewish or welcoming in the Polish language caption, is there? Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Everyone can make a few errors. Looking at Stawiski, for example, I concur that the early version had some sourcing issues (and actually I extensively discussed this on talk, where I agreed with you, and where I supported adding further information on Polish involvement in the progroms, etc.: Talk:Stawiski#Polish_participation_in_pogrom_of_Jews_in_1941). But one revert with question in edit summary, which is what Poeticbent did, is certainly allowed per WP:BRD. There was a short discussion on talk at Talk:Stawiski#Recent_edits, which I commend you for starting, in which Poeticbent did not participate at all and in which GCB seems to have acted politely, and where you escalated with AE for no good reason I can see. All in all, based on the diffs presented, after you pointed out an error, BRD was observed and an error was corrected.

As for the image with the welcoming caption, this was recently discussed on your talk; Poeticbent's caption was significantly based on some (not always very reliable) sources out there; we even concluded that the museum caption made a mistake in regards to the year, too. Again, mistakes happen, no need to assume bad faith and accuse people of some purposeful hoaxes. If those are representative of the rest of 'hoax' evidence, it is hardly a strong case.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Since Poeticbent is inactive, and we are talking about edits from ~10 years ago, it's hard to be sure what sources, exactly, where used in all cases. Instead of accusing editors of hoaxes, how about assuming some good faith? It's one thing to talk about hoaxes when there's some clearly disruptive IP or SPA, it's another to discuss this in the context of an editor who created hundreds of thousands of articles nobody has any problems with. All content creators will occasionally make some errors. Trying to hang them for a few diffs is, well... beyond pale. But such a 'thank you' to them indeed explains why Wikipedia has a problem retaining its most active contributors - sooner or later they run into a battleground area and burn out, with nobody to help them, but always somebody to criticize them :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

First of all, no one should bring evidence about long-time inactive contributors. Secondly, one should follow WP:AGF unless proven otherwise. People do a lot of mistakes around here. But as long as they do not object when someone else fixes their mistakes, this should not be a problem. Unless they make so many mistakes it becomes a WP:Competence issue, there is an obviously intentional misiniformation, or there is a clear pattern of POV editing, such as mass removals of relevant and well sourced text on multiple pages. None of that is the case here. My very best wishes (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: False statement, misrepresenting source, in their evidence

2) During the case, and as part of their evidence statement, Volunteer Marek falsely stated that a source had been misrepresented and in doing so misrepresented the source himself. Contrary to Volunteer Marek's statement, the cited journal article in Holocaust Studies and Materials by Dr. Grzegorz Krzywiec supports the text in the article. Volunteer Marek also asserted a "WP:BLPVIO" towards a subject that died in 2004, 15 years ago.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: false statements, misrepresenting source at ARBCOM.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh please, this is complete nonsense. Read what I wrote: "BLP subject did NOT assert "neo-Stalinism" is dominant in American social sciences". He didn't. I made no false statement. And are you seriously trying to make this into a Finding of Fact? Here, let me run over below and propose a Finding of Fact that says "During the case, and as part of workshop discussion, Icewhiz falsely stated that Volunteer Marek falsely stated that a source had been misrepresented and in doing so misrepresented the source himself, except he didn't, Icewhiz just didn't read what Volunteer Marek wrote or pretended otherwise"

Also, let me make a proposal for Findings of Fact for every single one of your well documented false claims and this page will be longer than a magic unicorn tail. "Icewhiz used anti-semitic sources to attack a BLP". Fact. "Icewhiz claimed that stating that communist party officials were communists was POV". Fact. "Icewhiz falsely insinuated that it's illegal for Polish Wikipedians to edit Polish Wikipedia on Polish-Jewish topics" Fact. "Icewhiz compared an anti-Nazi resistance movement to the Nazi Party". Fact. "Icewhiz claimed that we can ignore WP:RS policy if a Stalinist court had adjudicated the matter". Fact. "Icewhiz pretended that massacred women and children took part in some kind of a battle that never happened." Fact. Etc. I don't actually want to get into a silly little game where we propose findings of fact on each other, I'll let you play it alone. I do want to noted that you're being your typical WP:BATTLEGROUNDy self.

Oh yeah, and please don't move my evidence around as you did here. It's petty and it's not up to you to decide where my evidence goes. Ask a clerk if you got a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

You were caught red handed here - you asserted "Worse, the sources are misrepresented". Academic journal article on BLP's subject's book chapter - [11] states "The study scrupulously states that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s.. Bandying false accusations in ARBCOM, or in any administrative fora, is a big deal. Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of that all that is holy, unholy, kind of holy, semi-holy, weakly unholy, .3476*holy, square root of unholy, and partially sacred... can you please. stop. making. stuff. up. for just. a minute or two. And stop making wild exaggerated hysterical accusations. I was not "caught red handed". That's completely untrue. I wrote sources are misrepresented because they are. Goska for sure. The other one you cherry picked one part, left another one out. That's also a misrepresentation, even if a partial quotation matches up. And the BLP subject does NOT say anything like that. Obviously, because of the word limit, I can't go into a detailed explanation in my evidence. But it's all there on talk page. All you're doing here is attacking me with false insinuation to divert attention from the fact you were smearing an academic and violating BLP left, right, sideways, N, S, W, E, NE, SE, NW, SW and into the fifth dimension.

And you have some serious nerve writing "Bandying false accusations in ARBCOM, or in any administrative fora, is a big deal" after you falsely accused me of "Holocaust denial/distortion" in your Request/Case. What kind of a person does something like that? Nevermind, it's pretty obvious and I won't spell it out lest you go running to your evidence section to complain about "incivility".

Any decent person, if they made such an odious false accusation inadvertently, by accident, if they did not actually intend to smear others in this way, upon realizing that the other party was insulted, would immediately apologize. But you haven't. Which means that you did it intentionally. Which means that you should be WP:INDEF'd until you figure out that you can't make awful smears like that against others with impunity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt - I have not accused you of such. As for the journal article on "Hearts of Gold" - it is not cherrypicked - it covers the neo-Stalinism piece at some length in a negative manner (as do other sources). The journal article was clearly cited, and the text matches the journal article source.Icewhiz (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes you have. I can entertain the possibility that you did this inadvertently, but you most certainly did. And... "Bandying false accusations in ARBCOM, or in any administrative fora, is a big deal". At the very least you owe me an apology if not a block for this kind of behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also - claiming a BLP violation vs. Tomasz Strzembosz - dead for 15 years - in diff (removed [12] but "might put these back later") is not cool. Furthermore multiple academic sources on the subject cover his radical negationist views.Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

True, he's been dead for 15 years (man, I'm getting old). Now this "radical negationist" views... what the hey is that mean? You know the ArbCom people are not historians or political scientists, so why do you keep using this term all over the place and repeating it like some magic incantation without explaining what it means? Because it sounds "scary"? In fact it's just a specialized term used by a SINGLE person (so it's not even in widespread usage) to basically mean "even after 1950's Poland's sovereignty was radically constrained by the Soviet Union". That's it. Oooooooooo. So scary. Radical! Negationist!

And actually, no, "multiple academic sources on the subject" DO NOT "cover his radical negationist views". At least you've never presented such sources. One source does it. And Strzembosz was a mainstream, respected historian. Joshua D. Zimmerman for example cites him extensively, approvingly, and respectfully. The fact that you keep trying to insinuate otherwise is just you continuing with your obnoxious BLP violations. Well, ok, he's been dead for 15 years. So maybe not BLP. But still WP:TEND since it involves repeated restatement of false claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

My very best wishes: false statements in evidence

3) During the case, and as part of their evidence statement, My very best wishes falsely claimed,[13] that this journal article by J. Otto Pohl supports their viewpoint, while the journal article itself is on a different subject and doesn't mention the "Polish operation" or Poles. Present in closed evidence 24 June(bullet-5 (link #180) in section), despite MVBW being informed of the misrepresentation on 10 June. Furthermore, in diff they claimed that Icewhiz inserted "Harvest" (misnomer, usually: "Hearts of Gold") as a source, however in the diffs offered - [14], [15] - the cited sources are a journal article by Grzegorz Krzywiec,[16] and a review by Danusha Goska,[17] covering "Hearts of Gold" and the controversy in a secondary manner and not "Hearts of Gold" itself. (evidence bullet-2 (links #162, #163))

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Both of these are rather clear false statements entered into evidence.Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Reminder to Icewhiz: just because you claim something, doesn't mean it's true. In fact, you're kind of illustrating how WP:BATTLEGROUND your attitude is here. How about you let ArbCom do their job instead of trying to do it for them? You're desperately trying to control the narrative here, but it's slipping, and your panic is showing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Not panicking at all. I pointed out two rather clear false statements to be evaluated by the committee. They are quite easy to evaluate, Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

they were not "clear false statements". They were both fine. At worst, the word limit prevented them from being 100% clear. The fact you're pretending that these were "false statements" just shows how WP:BATTLEGROUND your mindset is and how you try to portray anything by anyone that disagrees with you in the worst possible light. And folks wonder why these discussions never lead anywhere. Welp, that's it right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Both false statements appear in the closed evidence (01:03, 24 June 2019) - in the "Anti-Polish POV of Icewhiz" section - bullet-2 (links #162, #163) for "Hearts of Gold"", bullet-5 (link #180) for J. Otto Pohl's article which is stated as refuting - "Icewhiz removes sourced information about political repression against Polish population by the Soviet NKVD and the similar organization of communist Poland .... Icewhiz tells it was ethnic cleansing, not genocide (discussion). Not according to some academic RS [179], [180]" (180=J. Otto Pohl). Pohl's article is on 1937-1951 deportations (a separate issue from the national sweeps in the Great Purge) - and does not contain "Poles", "Polish", or the "Polish operation". I will also note "removes" is incorrect in regards to - [18][19] - where this was replaced with other sources (without misrepresenting Ellman, and without using Sommer's book, book jacket, tabloid interview (Super Express) , etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Perhaps I was not clear enough in Evidence because of word limitations. My first link ([179]) is about "Polish operations". The second link ([180]) is a publication about ethnicity-based persecutions the USSR in general. This is NOT a separate issue, but one of many ethnicity-based mass murders by the NKVD (as, for example, explained in the article by Ellman [20], footnote #37, discussed by Icewhiz); note that Poles are correctly included on our page. I never said the 2nd ref was about Polish operations. Here is (May 28-June 4) our initial discussion with Icewhiz (included as link in Evidence). I said "One can easily find academic sources that explicitly argue that ethnicity-based operations by NKVD in general were "genocide (for example, here), and that their Polish operations were genocide (for example, here). Note: these are scholarly academic sources." As about second issue, I removed it from the Evidence just because discussing something with Icewhiz is so difficult. Well, I edited very little in this area and had just a few conversations with Icewhiz. The conversations per se were fine. But he created such a firework of accusations! Poor Poeticbent (he was such a nice guy) and Volunteer Marek. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• So nice.[21] François Robere (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. After editing here, I became a worse person. Fortunately for P., he left the project. But whatever. I provided some evidence and made a few comments. I hope Arbs will find them helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek engaged in harassment of Icewhiz

4) Volunteer Marek harassed Icewhiz, hounded his editing despite multiple requests to stop and engaged in a pattern of personal attacks and incivility towards Icewhiz.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per:

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek's harrassment of Icewhiz
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#VM: PA, ASPERSIONS and assumptions of bad faith
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#VM unnecessarily personalized disputes.
4. Also some diffs in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: Verification(points 1,4) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek POV/FRINGE(POV point 5)
5. User:Icewhiz/hounding - for full annotated list of 15-30/May edits following mine.

Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't even bother addressing this part of your "evidence" because it's so obviously bonkers. I've been editing this topic area since... 2005. You showed up in 2017. In fact, you seem to have gotten interested in this topic area AFTER we had a few disputes on Donald Trump and alt-right related articles (where you were supporting both). At the time, while I was annoyed by our disagreements I still naively thought you were acting in good faith, so when I saw your article Wrangell Bombardment at DYK I did a thorough copy edit of it and helped you to get it through the nomination process. Then, all of sudden, you began your crusade across all these Poland related article. I guess this was your own special way of saying "thanks", huh?

More specifically, like I said I've been here since 2005 and I've edited literally hundreds of articles, long before you showed up (afaik). We've both edited 173 articles in this topic area. Out of these, 115 were edited by me first. So if there was any hounding or stalking going on, it's the other way buddy. In fact, the nature of your accusation is kind of suspicious because it's so blatantly absurd, that it kind of looks like a pre-emptive strike ("someone might notice I hounded VM, so I better deflect by accusing him of it first!").

Out of the 57 articles which you edited first, about 40 of them have a pretty straight forward explanation for why I edited them - you were inserting the same piece of text, or making the same edit in multiple articles at once, the article was very closely related to another article we were both editing at the time and I edited first, the article involved a general dispute about sourcing in this topic area, and then there were new articles created by yourself or Piotrus which were also related to other contemporary disputes. The other 17 (out of 173!) articles which you edited first just look like they popped up on my watchlist since they're also very closely related to other articles I've edited.

So, sorry, no hounding there. Rather this is just your own WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

But as I was looking these data up, there was one striking phenomenon. A lot of the articles which I edited first, you edited a few years later. Here's the thing: the order in which you edited them in 2018 or 2019, matches pretty closely the order I edited them in ... 2008 or 2012 or 2014. So it's pretty obvious that you were sifting through my editing history going back many years and looking for what kind of trouble you could cause. Or perhaps you were gathering evidence already months ago, anticipating all the WP:AE reports you wanted to file (see the section below) and occasionally jumping in to make an edit. Now, for most of these, your edits did not revert mine. And you haven't brought any of this up in your evidence either. This means two things: 1) you didn't find any thing you could use as evidence against me, because my edits were solid, 2) you kind of figured that this might give your game away. Still, the close match between the order in which you edited them in 2017-2019 and in which I edit them in 2008-2014, tells a pretty clear story. While your intention may have been WP:HOUNDING in the end you wound up "only" WP:STALKING.

So your accusation is just more gaslighting.

(raw data here [22])

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think !voting Yes at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 91#RfC: Should the lead include the fact that Trump enacted, and later reversed, an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents? is particularly pro-Trump. Seems I also mostly agreed with VM in Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 5#RfC: Trump's reaction to Charlottesville. I fail to recall (or see in the interaction analyzer) where I supported alt-Right - I may have objected to something unsourced or ORish at a RfC - but I don't really edit American politics. I occasionally respond at RfCs or to very specific issues, but certainly I am not involved in the Trump wiki drama (nor would I ever want to enter it!) - the notion that editing on serious topics (Holocaust in Poland) is somehow motivated by AP2 (in which my seldom participation is mainly limited to RFCs) - is quite bizarre. It is quite evident who is following who if you looking at the editor interaction analyzer time gated from 2018 onward - and particularly so in the examples I provided. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

As for hounding - an annotated and fuller list of 15-30/May edits of VM following mine (I had over 25 reverts bells at the top of my screen) is available - User:Icewhiz/hounding. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about this 25, but in this period you *were* inserting the same problematic text into multiple articles, so I removed it from multiple articles. No mystery here. It seems that when I removed it from one article you decided to go all WP:POINT and spam it into as many articles - some only barely relevant as you could - as possible, just to "show me".

Now, can you explain why the order of your edits in 2017-2018 on a series of articles matches the order of my edits in 2008-2014? Were you going through my contributions one by one Icewhiz? Stalky, stalky. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• After looking at various comments, I got an impression that it was Volunteer Marek who behave as a victim of harassment. He was speaking as someone emotionally distressed and offended. Icewhiz, on the other hand, acted as someone who was very happy about the comments by Volunteer Marek (because he would bring these comments to WP:AE as an argument against Volunteer Marek), rather than someone who was sincerely offended by Volunteer Marek's comments. Poeticbent left the project because he felt like a victim of harassment by Icewhiz (it's good for him as a human being not to be around while Icewhiz throws this dirt at him). And BTW, after looking at this, I am too beginning to feel like a victim of harassment by Icewhiz. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? VM has been hurling insults at other (including myself) for well over a year. He's been warned against it at least twice by admins.[23][24] I myself asked him to stop four times in the first ten days that I knew him.[25][26][27][28][29] Does this strike you as the behavior of an aggrieved, timid adult? To me it looks like a rude, arrogant teen. And as for Poeticbent - just a reminder that he was banned at the AE he himself filed, as a result of his comments.[30] I suggest you review that AE before going all "oh, the poor fella!" François Robere (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, you need to check the policy on civility. For example, your own comment [31] ("Dear, next time comment in any way on my person, you will get reported") can be viewed as "belittling a fellow editor". More important, I think there are examples of baiting, unsubstantiated accusations and confrontational behavior by Icewhiz in Evidence, all of them qualify as civility violations per policy. I am not sure though about "wikihounding", this is more like a case of several contributors editing in the same narrow subject area and having content disagreements. I do not really see an intention to harass another editor by following their contributions. The conflict occurs during some discussions and editing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That was the third time in a week (!) that I had to warn him, and the first two were plenty nice. What standard of civility do you want me to go by, exactly, when an editor with whom I've had no previous contact starts accusing me of falsifying sources? Would you like me to apologize, perhaps, for not being sensitive enough to his superb standards of sourcing? "I'm sorry, sir, it won't happen again!" I find it astonishing that what caught your eye is my use of the word "dear", and not the barrage of ASPERSIONS that preceded it:[32] "invention", "shenanigans", "blatantly misrepresenting some sources", "bait-and-switch", "dishonest WP:SYNTH and POV", "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games", "Making. Stuff. Up.", "making shit up", "blatant dishonesty", "WP:TENDENTIOUS pov pushing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT", "making stuff up that is blatantly false", "grossly misrepresenting what other users say", "cherry [picking sources]", "simple WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" - and that's not even the whole page! And then you go and say VM is such a gentle soul - a poor sod viciously hounded by Icewhiz... He called for Icewhiz to be banned on that very page.[33] A year and a half ago. François Robere (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a cultural difference, but I would prefer if someone said to me: "what a f... you are making shit up?" rather than "Oh dear, dear, I am reporting you to WP:AE because I love you". My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What about assuming good faith and not doing either? François Robere (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

FR, did you just call me a "poor sod"? Aside from the fact that THAT is a direct personal attack, and aside from the fact that you're using it while... complaining about incivility from others (LOL), you're not using the word "sod" correctly here. Anyway. Let's see - since you weren't party to this case, I didn't put this in the evidence, but yeah, you were misrepresenting sources and then playing games. Specifically:

You claimed that Poles who were employed by the Ostbahn were collaborators [34]

I pointed out, with perfect civility, that your sources didn't say anything like that

You then said that sources don't actually have to say that for you to put it in (they do - WP:OR)

I pointed out, with perfect civility, that this is not true, the sources need to at least say something close to what you're claiming, and your sources don't.

You also tried to add new sources which "use the term collaboration explicitly"...

Except these new sources, as I point out, with perfect civility, just happen to use the word "collaboration" in an entirely different portion and not with regard to the Ostbahn workers, [35], so now you're up to misrepresenting FOUR sources.

You then claim that because the word "collaboration" appears in the source and the source also mentions the Polish railroad workers, then obviously the two are related.

I point out, with perfect civility, that the mention of the Polish railroad workers [36] is part of the general description of the German occupation and does not refer to collaboration.

I also point out, this time with a bit of irritation showing, that all you're doing is linking to general google books searches and claiming the justification for your edits is somewhere "in there" [37] and that that's not enough. I asked for quotes.

You refused to provide quotes and instead made a snide comment about my ability to do google books searches. You did provide page numbers though.

I checked the page numbers and, once again, pointed out that none of these supported the text you were trying to insert.

You asked for a third opinion and repeated your false claims about sources.

And it was at this point that I explicitly stated that you were blatantly misrepresenting sources and making stuff up. Because you were. Your behavior was indeed classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

The request for 3O was declined.

You opened an RfC which was commendable, but the consensus was overwhelmingly against you. It was closed by User:Fish and Karate. Unlike many RfCs in this topic area this one actually attracted outside editors... who also disagreed with your WP:SYNTH

So yeah. When someone is constantly misrepresenting sources and making false claims about what's in them, what are you suppose to say? "It's not in there, look here [] [] []". "It's not in there". "It's not in there" "It's. Not. In. There." ... ... "FFS, it's not in there, just stop it!" That's pretty much most discussions with you and Icewhiz.

You're also trying to put words in MvBW's mouth. He didn't call me a "gentle soul". He just pointed out, correctly that Icewhiz was stalking my edits and making false insinuations and WP:BAITing me, until my responses got frustrated. You were doing the same. Not sure how this is suppose to make you or Icewhiz look better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Here. And we're past the evidence phase, so arguing on the merits of sources is undue. I will say that a) your "perfectly civil" response included accusing me of "inventing" claims, which is not "perfectly civil"; b) your adherence to a verbatim interpretation of sources would've been impressive, if it wasn't flexible[38]; and c) most of us have enough patience for our colleagues so as to not cast childish ASPERSIONS at them starting with the fourth message, regardless of how we perceive content. François Robere (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I tried (and still try) to constructively work with Icewhiz, for example by pinging him on various talk pages I thought his input would be welcome, ex. 5 months ago here (I could cite dozen+ others examples). As someone who still holds hope that we can all work in this topic area constructively in the future, I will say that I don't appreciate that Icewhiz presented evidence against me, much of which he never even brought up on the talk pages of various articles. I did not intend to present evidence here against any user until he started presenting evidence against me (even through I am not a party). I wouldn't say I am being harassed - but I certainly don't appreciate being dragged into this and having to 'defend' myself. While I still believe that there is no need for blocks or content topic bans on anyone here, writing this post actually made me wonder if the solution for peace and quiet in this topic area wouldn't be as simple as to ban him from submitting more AE/ArbCom requests, which after all produced a lot of noise, did not solve anything but managed to drive the most prolific content creator in this area away. Icewhiz content edits, as I noted, are generally helpful in trying to moderate some biases (and while they introduce others, that's perfectly fine in light of NPOV). His input re conflict resolution, however, seems to to have not been constructive in this topic area at all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek failed to follow the verifiability policy

5) Volunteer Marek failed to follow the verifiability policy. Despite content being clearly challenged on verifiability grounds, Volunteer Marek has repeatedly restored content that is not present in the citation (original research) and in some cases contradicted by other sources or the citation itself. Volunteer Marek failed to engage in meaningful discussion to rectify the issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Ealdgyth (last bullet point - Ellman)
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: Verification
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes (points 2.2, 4).

Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Dude. You used an anti-semitic source to attack a BLP, you used a source which didn't say AT ALL what you claimed it said, and then when you tried to kind of, sort, maybe correct it so that admins wouldn't ban hammer you, you... failed to verify what river actually flows through Poland. It's Vistula man. Volga's in Russia. All of this is like WPV101. Stones and glass houses. Mote here, beam there. Also, your "evidence" quite simply, makes false claims as has already been explained several times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Link #1. Speaking about evidence by Ealdgyth, he provides this edit by VM as potentially problematic. The edit is not really significant: key numbers and the overall meaning did not change after the edit by VM. He only used more sources (I checked some of these sources and made comment here) and he restored the phrase that according to Ellman these events "amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention". I agree: this is not an accurate description of views by Ellman: he discusses if these events "amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention" (here is my understanding). However, I think this is something really minor, and it has been already resolved on two pages after brief discussion. This is just a very minor content disagreement, which does not rise to the level of anything even remotely sanctionable. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Link #2. Here I can not understand a thing, and leave this to arbitrators.

Link #3. This is all about another contributor, Poeticbent. The only edit by VM is this, and I do not have a slightest idea why it should be considered problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek's editing on Polish Jews and antisemitism

6) Volunteer Marek has treated Jewishness as an immutable trait (describing former Jews as Jews),[39][40][41][42] removed "Polish" as an adjective from the first lede sentence of Polish Jews,[43][44][45] and openly advocated that for "people who were both Polish and Jewish" that both Polish and Jewish be removed from the lede.[46] These editing practices are counter to MOS:ETHNICITY and community norms. Furthermore, Volunteer Marek has referred to editors, sources, and authors discussing antisemitism in Poland as bigoted,[47], prejudiced,[48][49], extremist,[50], racist,[51], "gratuitous stereotyping",[52], "rant is stuffed so full of nonsense",[53], and "stuffed full of inaccuracies, falsehoods, hyperbolic..."[54].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek POV/FRINGE + Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek's harrassment of Icewhiz (also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#IP's invited to edit and change Jewish to Polish). General context: outgroup treatment of Polish Jews has troubling connotations, as does the denial of antisemitism in Poland.

References

Comment by others:

I do not see these edits by VM as anything even remotely problematic:

1. [55] I am too not sure what "former Jew" means. A religious Jew who converted to another religion? But it also means an ethnicity and a nation, as our page correctly tells. There are many non-religious Jews. Is that a problem?
2. [56] - what's the problem? Do not we have a Category:Polish Jews?
3. [57]. It tells: he "was a Polish officer in the Ministry of Public Security of the Polish People's Republic." VM removes one of several "Polish" in the same phrase. How on the Earth this is related to Jews? Yes, MOS:ETHNICITY applies on various pages, but I do not see any edits by VM which would be directed against it. I also do not see that he "openly advocated" against following MOS:ETHNICITY.
4. [58],[59] - VM argued that a 17th century satirical poem was not antisemitic or "hate speech". I have no idea, but it looks like a content dispute.
5. [60] I agree that "Jew with a coin" can be viewed by many as antisemitic. However, I also agree with Pudeo [61] that "the topic is not "obviously" antisemitic." and that "aspersions of antisemitism are serious.". Now, VM tells in this diff that "The source does NOT tie two phenomena together. You do. It's a COATRACK for the whole disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV into this article." I agree that a message about all "Poles are anti-semities" can be regarded as racist, but I have no judgement if the initial version of the page [62] was designed as an anti-Polish attack page because I am not familiar with the sources. Any way, this still looks to me as just a content dispute.
6. [63] - even if this appear in cited sources (I do not know), this can be arguably undue. This is just a content dispute.
7. [64],[65] - arguing that a source does not belong to the page because the author is not an expert. What's the problem? This has nothing to do with Jews. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I do not think most of the disputes were about antisemitism in Poland. That is how Icewhiz is trying to frame the subject. Antisemitism in Poland is a very narrowly defined subject as described only on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Piotrus

Proposed principles

We are here to build an encyclopedia

1) We are here to Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Editors should work in a collegial manner to create and improve the article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Avoiding battleground

2) Editors should avoid actions that promote WP:BATTLEGROUND, such as 1) personal attacks against other editors, 2) controversial aspersions against authors of sources cited, particularly where they can infringe upon WP:BLP 3) adding WP:REDFLAG content with inadequate sourcing 4) or by removing uncontroversial, relevant content, as such actions can antagonize and radicalize other editors and lead to the loss of good faith in the other party. Uncontroversial, relevant content which is poorly sourced should be tagged with {{Citation needed}}, {{Unreliable source?}}, {{Self-published inline}} or such to encourage other editors to improve referencing quality without compromising current verifiability. Editors are also reminded of WP:BRD.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Reliable sourcing and encyclopedia building reminder

1) Editors should use quality sources per WP:RS, WP:V. Editors are encouraged to replace low quality sources with high quality sources. Editors should avoid using low quality sources for any controversial (WP:REDFLAG) claims. Low quality sources used for any controversial claims can be removed by any editor together with said controversial claims. Low quality sources used for uncontroversial claims which are relevant to the article should instead be tagged with {{Unreliable source?}}, {{Self-published inline}} or other relevant template, as they still serve the purpose of verifiability. Adding controversial content, or removing relevant, uncontroversial content without prior discussion and consensus should be avoided, as it can promote a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Encouraging cooperation

2) If an editor active in this content area wants to do a significant edit that may be controversial, and if they are aware of other parties that may be interested in this, they should demonstrate good faith and desire to reach consensus by explaining it on talk with a ping and/or notifying relevant WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland or Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In my capacity as an uninvolved newbie in-over-their-head, I would endorse this remedy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User: TonyBallioni

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions authorized

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for Antisemitism, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This topic area is already under EE, but there may be merit for antisemitism elsewhere. I will note however that AE is ill-equipped to deal with misrepresentation of sources (citation says X, article says not X) and use of really sketchy source (i.e. antismeitic sources, holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists). Unless it is crystal clear - this is viewed as a content dispute at AE. Currently, AE is good for personal attacks, 1RR, stuff like that. In the closed ARCA I tallied a "List of prior AE actions" (collapsed, open it up) - basically most of the complains were on sketchy sources and misrepresentations. With one notable exception (Stawiski) as well as a sourcing restriction (which did help!) on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland - editors were sanctioned for personal attacks and battleground - not for source misrepresentation. Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Honestly, this is what is needed: Eastern Europe is already under DS but what makes this area so toxic is the extreme emotions people have over this subject, and those are justified but can often lead to conflict in a collaborative project. These issues are also present in British Labour Party articles to a lesser degree, and are mainly being dealt with by the BLP DS, just as EE is being stretched to deal with it here. ArbCom should just create an overarching antisemitism DS in this case to avoid having to do it in 6-12 months when it pops up in another topic area. Plus, it’d also help deal with a lot of the alt-right nonsense and hopefully forestall the inevitable AP3 ArbCom case until after those of you who don’t want to deal with it are off the committee... TonyBallioni (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Except this case is not about antisemitism. But since the case was improperly named, and despite this issue being raised hours after that, it has remained badly named, well, here we go. Sure, let's pass a DS for antisemitism. It won't address the issue here at all, but hey, missing the forest for the trees wouldn't be the first here, eh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Problem is, admins have no idea what antisemitism is. You seem to expect a swastika-adorning, leather-clad skinhead, and completely miss the friendly grandma next door who walks around mumbling "it's all because of the Jews!". Whatever your intentions may be, if your guideline as to what constitutes racism is this piece of naive, simplistic and poorly-written prose (which I believe was composed by some of the admins), then you're bound to make Wikipedia a safer place for racists than to anyone trying to call them out. We don't need more rules, we need more informed admins. François Robere (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not really see how this case is related to the subject of antisemitism. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually User:TonyBallioni, I think simply banning Icewhiz from participating at WP:AE would solve 90% of the problems (see my analysis above). If he can't run to WP:AE over every disagreement, he might actually start acting more collaboratively on talk pages rather than obstructing, obfuscating, making outlandish provocative statements, and derailing discussions just as they become constructive (Icewhiz does NOT actually want the problems resolved amicably because then he doesn't have an excuse to ask for sanctions, likewise he avoids WP:RSN and other dispute resolution boards because with a few exceptions when uninvolved editors get involved in the content they tend to point out the problems with his behavior). Take away his main weapon and the shooting will stop. Or at least lessen.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, this would solve a lot of the current problems in the Israel-Palestine topic area, so you'd actually be getting a two for the price of one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence by Piotrus

Poeticbent and his retirement

First, the most constructive thing this ArbCom could do is to review and hopefully rescind, with an apology, the topic ban against User:Poeticbent which caused his retirement. He was the author of 1000+ quality articles including 200+ DYKs, many of them on Polish-Jewish history, like his GA on the Treblinka extermination camp, and also a contributor of helpful infographics like a map of the Holocaust in Poland. See AE where he received his topic ban for a single diff perceived as violating NPA and comments on his talk page. While this ArbCom may or may not issue sanctions against others, it is also high time ArbCom tried to foster a good editing environment by repairing past damage and actively encouraging editors who are here to build the encyclopedia, sending a message that Wikipedia is here for content, not for fighting and flaming. This is also relevant to this case, not only because Poeticbent is listed as a party, but because a prolific content creator, being driven away after having been baited into making a single NPA, is a prime example of the damage done to our community and to the project's overarching mission, when 'remedies' are being handed out in a cowboy fashion without considering the 'big picture'. ArbCom should therefore review the appropriateness of Poeticbent's topic ban in its findings, and consider the pros and cons of an apology to him. While such apologies and outreach are not common practice, precedents are to be set, and I specifically recommended that Wikimedia Foundation creates an outreach program targeting retired, prolific contributors in my peer reviewed paper. If a precedent is set and he returns, recovering a very prolific content creator for the project, it my humble opinion it would mean this ArbCom would have already achieved much, much more than most others. And I wager that you, dear committee members, would probably feel better about your role, too, being remembered as a THE Committee that started the process of actually helping people and saying nice things about them...

Edits promoting battleground mentality

Second. analysis of my evidence. MVBW wrote in his evidence "Icewhiz thinks that others downplay crimes by Poles against Jews and therefore fights back by downplaying crimes committed by Nazi, Soviet NKVD and communists against Polish people. Others feel offended (see evidence by Molobo). That ensure the battleground." This a very good summary, except downplaying crimes committed by Nazis on Poles is IMHO not that common. Instead what is happening is that IMHO Icewhiz (and Francois, an editor who joined the topic area together with Icewhiz and whose edits are effectively limited to being a "tag-team" yes-man to him) thinks that Poles are trying to exaggerate the extent to which they helped the Jews during the war to counterbalance the shameful revelations about the extent of Polish antisemitism, and so he is trying to both remove the mentions of rescue efforts (as exaggerated) and stress the (according to him - and he is not totally wrong here, marginalized) extent of Polish antisemitism. Now, in all fairness, Polish sources (and populace in general) are biased, roughly in the way he thinks they are... but neither are Israeli (or American, etc.) sources free of bias, and NPOV does allow us to use biased sources, as long as they are reliable, with care to undue and such. I also strongly believe that no editor discussed in this case so far has done anything that warrants anything but a warning at most (this certainly includes Poeticbent, whose topic ban and retirement was actually the worst thing that has happened to this topic area). In particular, I want to stress that while the arrival of Icewhiz (and FR) in this topic area two years ago has created, sadly enough, conflict and battleground, it has also been valuable from the neutrality perspective. The topic area has been indeed unduly dominated by pro-Polish sources, and it needed more balance. It is just a shame this could not have been done in a more collegian fashion, and instead resulted in a progressing battleground mentality (please see my mini-essays on radicalization and the related model). The crux of the issue, really, is the near total erosion of good faith. One side perceives the other as borderline antisemitic; the other, offended, perceives other as anti-Polish, and instead of collaborating, I am afraid too many editors on both sides are increasingly trying to get their opponents banned or blocked (hence, the numerous AE reports that have culminated in this ArbCom). So far, the only real damage was the driving away of Poeticbent, which resulted in the net loss of dozens of articles he would have written and expanded if he was still here. It is nonetheless a great loss, because Poetcibent has done more in this area than all of the other parties here combined, myself included (and while I am a major content creator, I am pretty sure that Poeticbent created more content in this area than me). It is crucial to prevent this from happening again, and if possible, to reverse it by inviting him back (with a note that his contributions are appreciated, and maybe a caution that he should be more careful when editing topics related to the zydokomuna topic). How to solve the bigger issue, i.e. mandate good faith, is mostly besides me (hey, that's why you, the Committee, gets the big wikibucks, eh?). All I can do is to demonstrate why one can perceive Icewhiz edits as anti-Polish (through I am sure from his view he is only restoring the balance and removing undue pro-Polish POV, and hence, per AFG, I personally don't believe he consciously has such a POV). While things need to be 'centered', and pro-Polish bias should be tamed, the examples I presented in my evidence are where IMHO Icewhiz (and occasionally, FR) have went to far, skirting if not violating NPOV, BLP, and other polices, which in turn led to the spiral of retaliation, radicalization and battleground creation which landed us here.

I will also note that one way to decrease battleground mentality is to realize one's POV, and try to make compromise edits, not only grudgingly allowing "others" to have their say, but actually agreeing with them - and putting one's "edits" where one proverbial mouth is. For example, even through I am a Pole, I've created articles on topics controversial to many Poles, such as Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, Hunt for the Jews, Jan Grabowski (historian), or the Golden Harvest (book), because they are notable and needed, even if some of them tackle issues that make my nation appear less then the perfect ideal some wish it was. Poeticbent, as noted, created dozens of articles on Jewish suffering. While one cannot mandate content creation as an enforceable remedy, one can partially judge whether an editor is attempting to compromise or not, and whether their conduct is constructive or not in a given topic, by their edits, in the spirit of Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. I strongly encourage all involved parties to consider whether they are here to build an encyclopedia, or fight a war and prove a side "right" or "wrong".

Rebuttals and recommendations

Lastly, analysis of evidence presented by others. First I do not believe than anyone, myself included, has presented anything that warrants more than a warning, or at least I can't think of what other type of solutions would be helpful, as, IMHO crucially, the quality and neutrality of various articles has been improved. It just would be nice if somehow we could all follow WP:AGF. One recommendation I have, for Icewhiz and FR (that they are already familiar with), would be to treat Polish sources with less suspicion then they do. They are, of course, biased, but so are others, and the Polish sources are often able to access a wealth of primary sources like the Polish eyewitness accounts Western academics simply can't read. And while we should strive to use reliable sources, sometimes WP:SPS or such are acceptable, if they do not raise any WP:REDFLAGS (per Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when...). Case in point, Icewhiz removal of Poray as a source from various ghetto articles (and more recent criticism of Lux Veritas Foundation's website) was very much not helpful.

First, 90% of the content sourced to Poray that was removed could have been verified with more reliable sources (as I've shown).

Second, none of the content removed was 'redflag'. Challenged contented was limited strictly to uncontroversial statements of facts, with no opinions or such being offered. Some common sense perspective is needed. I often deal with cleanup of spam/vanity (WP:NORG, etc.), nominating many articles for deletion. A low quality, SPS, promotional source like a company's website or a press release is still acceptable for uncontroversial statements of facts like company's year of founding or location of their HQ or other facilities, and what Icewhiz is challenging here is no more controversial - simple statements that Person X attempted to aid Person Y, more often then not receiving the Righteous Among Nations award. No heated opinions, just cold and uncontroversial facts that help build content, but whose removal creates a heated controversy as some editors are offended by what they perceive as attempts to censor simple facts.

Third. Icewhiz argues that such facts nonetheless are an attempt to push a particular POV. The relevant policy for us to consider is WP:UNDUE, and the relevant solution, discussion on talk. Generally, per WP:NOTPAPER, we have room for all the facts, but if there are concerns about some sections having undue length or such, the solution is, per WP:SUMMARY, to split them off and only offer a summary in the main article. This is the constructive approach. Removing such information, or trying to get editors who add it sanctioned, is the opposite of being constructive and building an encyclopedia, and results in battleground creation and related problems.

Fourth, going after content added by an editor one was in conflict with, and who retired after an unfair accusation and sanction, is not particularly 'sporting'.

Fifth, the few paltry diffs there were gathered as evidence of my misdoing are little more than illustration of battleground mentality and an attempt to win content disputes by trying to get the other party sanctioned (sadly, it works often enough, case in point being what happened to Poeticbent). Consider (headings adapted from Icewhiz's evidence, through constant revisions of it can make things confusing):

• "dubious sourcing" - I made some arguments on talk as I generally neither add nor restore such sources. And it's not like there is a consensus that they are all unreliable. But again, even disagreement with Icewhiz and trying to explain one's stance and reach compromise by posting, politely, on his talk is 'evidence' of using dubious sources, even if there is no consensus that said sources are dubious. He is right, disagreeing with him is "a crime" and so sources that do not support his POV have to be dubious.
  • Kielce: yes, I accidentally restored Poray SPS (I did not in a bunch of similar edits I made on the same day listed below, not that I consider her unreliable for uncontroversial facts about the Righteous). Icewhiz conveniently omitted to mention that in the same diff I also added another, more reliable source by an expert historian as well which verified all the content. I would not object to removal of this reference, and in fact I myself removed said source later as no longer needed. Note that Icewhiz did not attempt to replace it with a RS himself, remove it or start a discussion - he just reported it here, without first raising any concern with me, or at article's talk. WP:BRD:0, WP:BATTLEGROUND:1.
  • LuxVeritas criticism - also explained elsewhere on this workshop apge. Perfectly uncontroversial information, and acceptable source. Crucially, note that Icewhiz could not find a single source critical of LVFounation, it's all association fallacy and straw man fallacy accusations like [66] (of course Radio Maryja is not an acceptable source, but it's a straw man to imply I ever considered it as such, and it is association fallacy to say that that LVF is unreliable because it receives funding from the same source that RM does, particularly where LVF pages are well referenced and verifiable with RS sources, and used solely for uncontroversial facts, not opinions). Also, Icewhiz again did not even attempt to question this source (never before criticized) on article's talk/RSN in general or mention his concerns about it to me in particular, he instantly brought it up here. It's again a clear failure of WP:BRD and a proof of battleground mentality, not even bothering to try to talk to other editors before asking for outside intervention and presumably sanctions. PS. Finally, if you look at the actual diff in Icewhiz evidence on this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bia%C5%82ystok_Ghetto&diff=902490041&oldid=901627853]), note my edit summary, and consider what is the impact on the battleground attitude of his decision to report this edit here instead of starting some sort of discussion on talk.
  • NCzas (withdrawn): I was just pointing out a source exists, I was not endorsing it nor calling it reliable; I've even (!) pointed out a potential COI of its author. It fits the pattern of attempts to discredit his opponents by taking innocent diffs like commentary on sources and trying to taint his opponents with guilt by association, trying to prejudice neutral parties through insinuations that his opponents are extremists.
  • GHoHG Ongoing RfC "as evidence"... As the still ongoing RfC shows, there is no consensus (yet) the source is unreliable or SPS; an RfC should be allowed to conclude before it is used in evidence or in any other way. Trying to discred it a historian by repeated (in dozen places...) "he has been profiled by SPLC" is irrelevant and tied to BPL issues I raised in my evidence (attracting criticism from an NGO only means one has a stance they disagree with; they are not the final authority on such issues). That another historian called someone else neo-Stalinist doesn't make (either) party unreliable, neither. It's just more guilt by association logic.
  • Kot: is a reliable historian and politician (Icewhiz describes him only as politician...), particularly in this context (first scholar to devote a monograph to the topic, obscure proverb/saying; co-author of that article, User:Pharos, otherwise not involved in this topic area, also considers the source valuable. Kot is also cited by Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (that's how I learned of his work), a scholar whom Icewhiz often cites, clearly considers reliable and whose page he started - and she calls Kot's work a "Solidne studium źródłowe" (solid source analysis). Kot was dismissed from his post due to political issues, nothing to do with quality of his research [67]. What Kot said about Jews, out of context anyway, is irrelevant here and just another association fallacy. This diff, like almost of all Icewhiz's evidence, only reflects on his attempts to dig dirt at all cost - throw enough and hope something sticks and prejudices the neutral parties.
• Barczewo/restitution/Krzyzanowski: edit summaries (or the content of the talk page post) are self-explanatory. What's the problem? Unless, of course, the problem is that disagreeing with Icewhiz is "a crime".
• tag-teaming: seriously? Informing editors about WP:ENABLEEMAIL is bad? For the record, I have exchanged some emails with Icewhiz himself. Maybe someone would like to accuse the two of us of improper collusion and such?
• followed by two or three examples of me and VM editing the same page. Errr. You can probably find thousands. We have similar interests. I could present hundreds of cases where Icewhiz and Francois have edited the same topic and supported one another, too. Like this AfD. Is there anything wrong with that? Of course not. Tag teaming is only a problem if it is related to bypassing 3RR or manipulating voting, and there is zero evidence for that on either side. The only problematic thing that is happening is the erosion of AGF due to spurious accusations..
• I will just note that FR's section 'Overview: Balance and Consensus' is a wonderful idea, but it is GIGO as it does not include numerous relevant discussions like this AfD or this one.

Lastly, it is imperative to stress that it is such challenge and removal of uncontroversial facts that fueled the battleground situation, creating an impression that there is a drive to remove (censor) information about Polish rescuers from Wikipedia. Icewhiz could have reduced the battleground mentality on both sides in this area by extending an olive branch and replacing substandard sources with reliable sources (like I did later, it took just a few hours). But he chose to remove information that he knew well would antagonize editors on the other side further. This type of editing and attitude should be curtailed; either voluntarily or through community's guidance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Rescue: Introducing WP:FRINGE content on the Holocaust, not supported by reliable sources, is an issue. WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE are also issues in relation to individual accounts. Piotrus introducing such content - [68],[69] sourced to pamiecitozsamosc.pl (per about: "the result of many years of research carried out by the Lux Veritatis Foundation") run by Lux Veritatis Foundation (Rydzyk), which probably counts as self-published, and is "Lux Veritas Foundation run by the ultra-conservative and nationalistic redemptorist Tadeusz Rydzyk, infamous for his anti-Semitic enunciations"Wóycicka, Zofia. "Global patterns, local interpretations: new polish museums dedicated to the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-25. - is beyond the pale. This during the case being open. Also - 12 June 2019 addition of pamiecitozsamosc.pl by Piotrus. This is alarming, to say the least.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Receiving financial support (as part of a 2017 contest) is not an indication of peer review (quite the opposite). Introducing Lux Veritatis (an organization that follows the Rydzyk party line) - an organization that runs Nasz Dziennik, Radio Maryja, Telewizja Trwam - material to Wikipedia is the definition of WP:QS. Holocaust rescue is a complex topic in reliable literature - e.g. Michlic, Joanna B. "Gender Perspectives on the Rescue of Jews in Poland: Preliminary Observations." Polin Studies in Polish Jewry 30 (2018): 407-426.. A website (with an unclear editorial process) run by Lux Veritatis is not remotely an appropriate source for such material. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

For context - Rydzyk runs a media empire (via the Lux Veritatis foundation), this website seemingly a new and minute addition to the empire, that is covered thus - NYT, Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives, Indiana University Press, Western Broadcast Models: Structure, Conduct, and Performance, De Gryuter ("heavily criticized by the mainstream media for its nationalist reporting, anti-Semitic sentiments, EU-sceptical slant and open support for right-wing politicians"), [70]. That this material is peddled on Wikipedia? What's next? Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Occidental Observer/The Occidental Quarterly are seemingly well-referenced as well (inline + citation list at the bottom of every article) - it doesn't mean they are remotely acceptable as sources. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeez - whatever could be the problem with "Radio Maryja and the other extreme nationalist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic media of the controversial Father Rydzyk" as a source on Wikipedia?! Kucia, Marek, Marta Duch-Dyngosz, and Mateusz Magierowski. "Anti-Semitism in Poland: survey results and a qualitative study of Catholic communities." Nationalities Papers 42.1 (2014): 8-36.Nationalities Papers is peer reviewed and published by Cambridge University Press, prof. dr hab. Marek Kucia is tenured at Jagiellonian University. Up to snuff for Holocaust history in Poland per comments here, it would seem.Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "AE where he received his topic ban for a single diff perceived as violating NPA" in regards to Poeticbent is false. The AE was filed by Poeticbent himself (alleging that removing Poray - a dubious SPS - was actionable - irony at its best!). Among others, the following PAs were given as example at the AE: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. The closing admin saying:

  ":*I've looked more closely at Icewhiz's counterallegations regarding Poeticbent. The charge of misusing SPS isn't something I'd act on, because it's close to a content dispute and it's not realistic to expect admins here to check the reliability of this number of sources; that would need an ArbCom case. But I think that Icewhiz's complaint regarding personal attacks by Poeticbent are actionable; one needs only to look at their most recent edit ("you are being manipulated by a POV pusher with a deep bias against Polish people in general") in addition to Icewhiz's examples to get the impression that this is somebody who operates in full WP:BATTLEGROUND mode. I think that a topic ban from the World War II history of Poland (the apparent topic of this set of disputes) would be appropriate here."

  - specifically saying "in addition to Icewhiz's examples" - so no, not a single diff.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Cut out sig from quote - so it won't appear like comment was made here. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  I will also note, that - "The charge of misusing SPS isn't something I'd act on, because it's close to a content dispute and it's not realistic to expect admins here to check the reliability of this number of sources; that would need an ArbCom case" - is exactly the issue with the current DS regime / AE enforcement. Users may introduce dubious sources, repeatedly, a WP:V policy violation - yet face no enforcement under DS as it is deemed too complex for enforcement.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You should probably format that quote differently because it makes it look like Sandstein commented *here*, which is misleading.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Note that I removed this phrase from my Evidence as pure speculation. Icewhiz and Francois - I do not know, but they obviously want you all banned, judging from their Evidence. And not only they: I noticed that Paul Siebert came up with an idea that "Something is definitely wrong with the group of Polish editors. Of course, majority of anti-Jewish edits they make (or tolerate) ..." [77]. No. He probably forget to check edit history of the page he is talking about. Here is edit by VM on this page [78] - he actually removed that nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: [79] I was not aware of Lux Veritatis connection to Rydzyk (whom I am hardly a fan of), but he is not the one doing the research, is he? It's like trying to discredit some organization for receiving funding from Soros or Koch brothers or whoever one's boogeyman is (i.e. association fallacy). The website notes it has received financial support from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so it has clearly went through some form of authoritative peer review. The content sourced to it seems fine for uncontroversial claims like Person X was involved in the rescue of Jews and received the Righteous Among Nations Award. Is this a REDFLAG material? Or even anything remotely controversial? Nope. Further, the page used as a source is also well referenced, and the story of rescuer Brust and his Righteous award is repeated in numerous indisputably reliable other sources, see this Google Books search, and can be easily verified by anyone with a modicum of good faith. Considering the large number of mentions, Brust is likely a notable individual and I should thank Icewhiz for reminding me of him, I'll try to stub an article about him one day. Lastly, given that the page, in English language, contains uncontroversial information, verifiable with Google Books snippets and such, is well referenced and open access, it is more helpful to use it as a reference then linking to two-three Polish language snippets on Google Books, through of course one could add such references as an extra footnotes - but it seems like an overkill for a simple uncontroversial fact. So, what is it that Icewhiz describes as "beyond pale"? Daring to mention a story of a rescuer on Wikipedia? Sacrilegious indeed. Well, I have my own opinion on what here is "beyond pale"... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for clarification by VM for Icewhiz

User:Icewhiz says in his rebuttal to MVBW I urge Arbs to contrast EnglishWiki version (...) vs. PolishWiki version. The POV slant (even only lede) in English is striking. This exemplifies topic area: PolishWiki is Polish left-of-center POV, while EnglishWiki slants Polish right-wing POV.

Icewhiz, can you clarify which parts of the EnglishWiki lede you consider to be POV?

Can you clarify which parts of the EnglishWiki lede of this article [80] you consider to be "right-wing"?

Can you clarify which parts of the PolishWiki lede of this article [81] you consider to be "left-wing"?

Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz Reply: No, actually the comment in your Evidence section is NOT "general" and it is in fact "directed to this specific article", since you explicitly name it (quote: Nazi crimes against the Polish nation: I urge Arbs to contrast ... Can you please clarify what in that specific article's lede on English Wikipedia is "right-wing"? What in that specific article's lede on Polish Wikipedia is "left-wing"?

And are you seriously complaining that individuals such as Karol Świerczewski (general in the Red Army, high ranking member of the communist party) Michał Rola-Żymierski (high ranking member of the communist party, officer in the NKVD and Minister of Defense in communist Poland) being described as "communist" is "POV"? Wow. This is worse than I thought. None of your other examples AFAICT include these "value judgements" (sic) of calling things "communist" or "Stalinist". Just, you know, people who actually were communists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled as to why you are objecting to my removal of a copy-paste WP:COPYVIO [82] when you say note also rationale in... (the exact text in the source is in the 6th paragraph). Are you suggesting we should leave COPYVIOs in our articles when they happen to agree with our POV? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you also provide examples of these "outsiders" who, like you, were surprised that communist army generals and communist party members were referred to as "communist" or that COPYVIO copy-pastes were removed from articles? I'm not seeing any but maybe I'm missing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And nota bene that while Rola-Zymierski's Polish Wikipedia article does not mention his service in the NKVD in the lede, it actually has a whole, large dedicated section to it in the body (hence, someone should fix the Polish Wikipedia, assuming their lede guidelines are the same as ours). The English Wikipedia version does not have a such section. So ... you actually kind of got it backwards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The lede of EnglishWiki version of Nazi crimes against the Polish nation is full of value judgements, some contested among scholars, whereas the PolishWiki sticks to the facts (detailing Nuremberg tribunal findings - so no POV slant actually - pure NPOV). The nature of these value judgements on EnglishWiki is rather clear, but does require some domain knowledge (and more than just looking at a snippet - it's a complex question). However my comment was general, and not directed to this specific article, and other articles are much clearer in this regard:

1. Lozisht EnWiki places this destroyed town in the infobox in the Second Polish Republic (and the Russian Empire), treating "Polishness" at length in the first paragraph as well. The PolishWiki version treats this as Ukranian in the lede and infobox - no Poland. Discourse on the Kresy (an area conquered by Poland in 1919-21, lost to Soviet annexation in 1939) is made by very certain quarters in Poland,[83] often coupled with general right-wing rhetoric.[84]
2. Contrast Sosnowiec Ghetto on EnWiki to PolishWiki version. Over 500 words - approx. half of the 1169 word body - are devoted to Holocaust rescue in the EnglishWiki version. There is a not a word on rescue in the Polish version. Rescue narratives are promoted by very certain Polish circles.[85][86][87] Furthermore, PolishWiki states that the stage for Maus is the ghetto - which is a rather significant factoid. The EnglishWiki is missing this (to be precise it was in a In popular culture section, however Poeticbent relegated this to a "see also" and in a subsequent pass removed it all together... back in 2013 EnglishWiki had no rescue either). Aggressively right-wing[88] organizations such as KPK Toronto (home of Mark Paul, in a document aided by "historians at the Institute for World Politics" (there's really only one candidate here...)) - object to the award winning Maus - document agains Maus. (and also promote Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy - by their Committee for the Defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles).
3. Contrast Karol Świerczewski on EnWiki - where he is presented as an "ethnic Pole" (but not Polish) and Soviet tool (note [89],[90],[91] (radical negation) whereas on PolishWiki he is portrayed as Polish. This carries over to other Marshals of Poland - e.g. the lede Michał Rola-Żymierski on EnWiki is a "Polish high-ranking Communist Party leader, communist military commander, NKVD secret agent, and Marshal of Poland by Joseph Stalin's order from 1945 until his death" - not so Polish.... (note diff). Whereas on PolishWiki's lede we have a factual description of his military and political career (including pre-1927 in Poland) - no "by Joseph Stalin's order" or "NKVD agent" in the lede. Radical negation is "expressed by right-wing groups".[92]
4. Contrast Belzec on EnglishWiki with no mention of gravedigging (note also rationale in diff) with extensive treatment in PolishWiki section (wartime) and PolishWiki section (postwar - profanation and oblivion). One should note that academic coverage of grave digging predates Gross by decades (heck - it was present on EnWiki in 2010, prior to Gross's publication in 2011). However Gross's Golden Harvest (book) (covering this topic and related ones) does serve as a useful measurement, as it was met with "the same reaction on the part of right-wing ethno-nationalistic historians and politicians: highly emotive and sinister attempts to counterbalance the ‘dark history’ by underscoring the ‘feel-good, light history.’[93]
5. Contrast EnglishWiki of Radziłów (anti-Jewish pogrom carried out by Poles, portrayed as German action (Poles absent) with preceding Jewish persecution of Poles) with PolishWiki. This is related to the Jedwabne pogrom (public discourse well covered in the literature) - according to Rafał Pankowski, a leading expert on Polish nationalism and right-wing extremism,[94] - "The extreme right traditionally thrives on debates about history, especially when the integrity of the nationalist narrative is questioned. Thus, extreme-right groups and leaders are frequently active during symbolic conflicts such as the controversy around the 1941 Jedwabne pogrom and similar tragic events. The debates have polarised Polish society with respect to its relationship with the past, especially the issue of anti-Semitism".[95]

Other examples abound. I was initially surprised by this (as were outside observers who have commented), but I'm now more aware of the mechanics that led to this situation. The PolishWiki actually tends to be fairly well balanced (certainly somewhat slanted as all language-Wikis to the POV of the specific locale - but this slant is within reason). The EnglishWiki, on Polish subjects, is filled with fringe discourse and abounds with "communist", "stalinist" labels and various value judgements. Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, A bit surprising, the POV slant of editors in the Polish topic area needs not match their POV slant in other topic areas. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

copyvios should be removed, however this was also challenged as "the other problems are that the legitimacy of this account (and in particular the photograph has been seriously questioned)." - which is rather spurious given Jan T. Gross is a superb source in and of himself + the existence of several top-notch sources pre-dating Gross. As for POV difference between Karol Świerczewski on EnWiki/PolishWiki and Michał Rola-Żymierski on EnWiki/PolishWiki - I think they are self-evident. The PolishWiki manages to mention they were communists alongside the accomplishments of these military/political leaders. Whereas the English wiki paints them as foreign Soviet agents. The POV hit-job on Rola-Żymierski is particularly glaring - "Marshal of Poland by Joseph Stalin's order from 1945 until his death - Stalin died in 1953. Rola-Żymierski died in 1989. I believe Rola-Żymierski remained Marshal of Poland (OF-10 - 5 star general) until 1989 (it seems it is the rank is still on his gravestone) - well after Stalin's order or influence dissipated in the USSR, Warsaw Pact, and Poland. Seems he kept the rank after being dismissed/imprisoned in 1953-56 (purges) - and that he fulfilled a number of roles in Poland (e.g. National Bank, Society of Fighters for Freedom and Democracy) from 1956 and until his death. Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am honestly not sure what this entire section is about, but I take an issue with the claim that writing about rescue of Jews by the Poles is somehow a problem. Expanding any content area is a good thing for Wikipedia. If that article, or related sections are overly developed, solution is not to gut or delete them, but to expand other sections and/or split too long sections into subarticles. It is true, btw, that some Polish sources promote this narrative in an attempt to "counterbalance" what they see as anti-Polish discussion of Polish collaboration. That is unfortunate and even shameful, but the solution is simply more research (and for us, more coverage). Just as valuable research into Polish collaboration (by Grabowski and Gross) should be described in Wikipedia in detail (by starting articles like Golden Harvest (book), Hunt for the Jews, Judenjagd, Collaboration in German-occupied Poland or Jan Grabowski (historian), which I have done), so should be research on the rescuers. If information on some collaboration or such is missing from an article, it can be added. There is no evidence of any serious attempts to remove it, through of course there are occasional editorial disagreements about sources or scope. But the recent attempt by Icewhiz to 'balance' things by removing a lot of information about the rescuers and/or targeting content by inactive Poeticbent (AfDs, etc.) is very counterproductive, both to the Wikipedia (makes our content less informative) and to the editing atmosphere (where it promotes battleground mentality). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Books quoted above are biased, critics removed or shortened, praises schematic. Frydel describes context of the Judenjagd ignored by Grabowski. How is it that a professor doesn't know basic things and master knows?Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sosnowiec Ghetto lacks basic information in the lead that Sosnowiec was a Polish city, invided and annected by Germany. Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz at WP:AE

Data is here

This is partly in response to evidence presented by User:MJL. In addition to past Arbcom cases, it's also instructive to look at what has happened at WP:AE and, basically, why "WP:AE failed". Indeed, this was one of - if not THE - rationale given for accepting the case by some arbs.

Since June 2017 Icewhiz has been involved in a whopping ... FIFTY WP:AE reports (it's possible I'm UNDERcounting) . That's more than one and a half WP:AE report per month. He easily holds the record as the most frequent participant during this period, if not overall.

Of these 50 reports, 32 are related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, 15 to Eastern Europe, 2 to UK Politics and one to American politics. The ones related to Eastern Europe don't start until 2018. In both these topic areas there has been an explosion of WP:AE reports since Icewhiz arrived on the scene(s)

Of these 50 reports, Icewhiz was a commentator in about 54% (27/50) of them, he filed the report in about the third of the (16/50) and was the subject of the report in 14% (7/50). In the topic area of Eastern Europe, Icewhiz was filer in 46.6% (7/15) of the reports, subject of report in a third (5/15) and commentator in 2.

By my count, out of all the reports he participated in, discounting those in UK and American politics and one which was withdrawn, the % of reports that were closed inline with Icewhiz's views and/or requests was 37%. The % of reports that were closed against Icewhiz was 45.7%. The rest were closed as neither for or against Icewhiz.

There is an interesting pattern here as far as WP:AE admins are concerned. Out of those reports that were closed against Icewhiz, 5 or 23.8% were closed against him by Sandstein. The remainder of reports that were closed against him, 76.2%, were closed by other admins (AGK, TonyBallionni, GoldenRing, NeilN, a couple others - Sandstein is by far the most active admin at AE so it makes sense to lump all not-Sandsteins together).

Of the reports that were closed in Icewhiz's favor, 82.4% were closed in such a favorable manner by Sandstein. Of the reports that were closed in Icewhiz's favor only 17.6% percent of were closed by other admins.

To put it another way, out of all the Icewhiz-related reports that Sandstein closed, he closed them favorably for him 73.8% of the time. Out of all the Icewhiz-related reports that were closed by OTHER admins, they closed them favorably to Icewhiz only 15.8% percent of the time.

I don't know about others, but this looks very very skewed. I could do a p value test here but I'm pretty sure even with a low N (number of observations) it'd pop out as a statistically significant difference.

I think Icewhiz has been using WP:AE as a weapon in his WP:BATTLEGROUND - this is evidenced by the sheer volume of reports he's involved in AND that's he's filed. This is true for BOTH Eastern Europe and Israel-Palestine topic areas (hell, maybe we should expand the scope of this case). He's had some success, particularly because of one particular admin, who, unlike other admins there, has been very favorable to him. This has incentivized Icewhiz to seek "resolution" of disputes by trying to get those that disagree with him sanctioned, rather than trying to achieve consensus on talk pages. This in turn results in Icewhiz's uncompromising attitude on talk, his derailing of discussions when they start not to go his way, and his taunts and provocations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Here is raw data. If you copy-paste it into a text file, then open it as tab delimited text in Excel it should line up nicely. I'll try to do a proper table but right now I got to get finished with this Evidence beeswax.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks! I might throw some more raw data at you then (that's what you get for being helpful). One thing - the Notes column is off because I was sorting the rows to do the calculations above and didn't sort that column. Probably best to just remove it as it's kind of irrelevant anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Actually it's a bit worse, because for 3 months out of those 2 years, Icewhiz was topic banned from EE which prevented him from filing WP:AE's in the area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this an end around the evidence page? The topic area being stable with several WP:HOAXes in articles and dubious sources (e.g. a known Holocaust distorter, self-published sources) used on Holocaust topics is an indication of the existing editor pool. I'll note that Volunteer Marek participated in most of the EE AEs, as well as being involved in other topic areas at AE (AP2, as well as IP - in which he became involved recently - e.g. in this AE he was in breach of 1RR, but a motion at ARCA mid-case made it unenforceable). Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, just because you yell "HOAX!HOAX!HOAX!" a lot to try and deflect attention from your self doesn't mean that anyone's buying it. And yeah, I participated in those AE's - and as I note above, I'm still at AE only a fourth of the time that you're there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Users are allowed to comment. As for reports filed against me - I'll note that in many cases this led to sanctions against the filers. As for my reports - they are mostly with merit. I shall note that, par the course, your data table misrepresents the results of several AEs as "no action" on my filings, e.g.:

1. [96] - Seraphim System is reminded not to respond to 1RR violations with violations of their own. GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
2. [97] - R9tgokunks is now fully aware of the editing restrictions existing in this area and is expected to edit accordingly. --NeilN talk to me 04:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
3. [98] - E-960 needs to be more careful when reverting. --NeilN talk to me 13:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

All marked "no action" in your table, are situations in which the reported users were warned. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

True. But what that means is that there wasn't much there. Admins are always warning folks to try harder. Closed as no action is an accurate description. And I've already made note of your success rate (roughly 1 in 3, worse than a coin flip), so yeah, in some cases those who filed against you were sanctioned. In other cases, ones you filed, nothing happened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@Volunteer Marek: just noting this response edit. Either way, diffs added to this section would be very helpful imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Thank you for that data. I've formatted it into wikisyntax for you. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

So by your count, in the EE topic area Icewhiz only filed seven AEs and was filed against five AEs in the span of a year? That's not a lot, especially as some of them are grouped (report/counter-report). And in 25 of the other cases (spanning over two years) he just commented, which is hardly exciting either. Basically what you've shown is that Icewhiz is involved in two conflict areas (but not that he's done anything wrong in any of them); and that Sandstein, who decided in about half the cases, is more likely to close in favor of Icewhiz than any of the other ten admins, who are barely statistically significant. As an aside, I've encountered Sandstein several times and never had the feeling that they're in any way "favorable" to me. Perhaps I'm not nice enough? François Robere (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that many filings is quite a bit, relative to other editors. Together with comments it means one EE report every two months. Together with IP it means two reports per month. And we both know, since we were both there on a number of occasions, is that a lot of Icewhiz's "comments" on these filings constitute of trying to "hitch a ride" to ask for sanctions against someone else. You got a report against person X, Icewhiz jumps in and says "you should sanction person Y". I don't know if it's "exciting" or not, tendentious certainly, but it's not minor. Like I said, more than any other user. BTW, still waiting on you to show me at least ONE discussion where you and Icewhiz don't support each other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

And you know what? I forgot that Icewhiz was topic banned from EE for three months which prevented him from filing or participating in WP:AE in the topic so it's actually even worse than it looks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

In such a contested topic area as this? Hardly. And you didn't mention that of the seven filing he made, four resulted in substantive action (including one that got both of you banned) and one was directed to ARBCOM, so at least five of the seven had "meat" on them; and of the five filings against him, none was accepted (though one got the filer banned and one got you banned), so clearly he wasn't in the wrong. That's more than half the filings ending in his favor, which means on average he's on the "right" side - his complaints aren't false.

I'm not sure why you would like to include comments. A lot of editors comment on ANI/AEs. François Robere (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"In such a contested topic area as this? Hardly" <-- actually yes. There's really no other way to phrase "more than any other user" is there? The numbers are right there in the table, but sure, deny reality. (you're also doing some creative double counting there, counting the AE that got Icewhiz and me topic banned once as closed in his favor, and then again as closed "against me". I counted it as "neutral", which is the honest way to count it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a comparison to any of the other users in that table, so your "more than any other" statement doesn't really carry weight. Regardless, as I previously explained, this doesn't mean anything if the filings are found justified, and in the majority of the cases they were.

I'm not "double counting" anywhere - I said the filing had substance, not that it closed solely in his favor. "Filing a lot" is not an offense; for it to be actionable one you have to show either that: a) a significant proportion of the claims is bogus (that is - lack substance); b) the claims are habitually used as an alternative to consensus-building processes; or c) that the sheer number of filings disrupts the normal operation of the system. You showed neither. François Robere (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, his success rate is about 1 in 3, which is worse than a coin flip, so yeah, kind of bogus. Now, that's commentator, filer and subject, but still. Like I said above, 99% of problems in BOTH this topic area and Israel-Palestine would probably stop if Icewhiz was just topic banned from WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"that the sheer number of filings disrupts the normal operation of the system. You showed neither" - the fact we're here says otherwise. Icewhiz constant BATTLEGROUND at WP:AE more or less overwhelmed that system and led, at least in part, to this very case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

François Robere egregiously false accusation

In my evidence I'm generally ignoring User: François Robere (for now) since he is not party to the case and his evidence is so vacuous, but this one is so obnoxiously false that I feel compelled to address it. His evidence still falsely claims in reference to me: Suggesting we do OR to involve a Jewish leader in a massacre: [175][176]. Diffs are [99] [100]. I do no such thing. I'm doing THE OPPOSITE. Some sources say Kovner was involved. *I* am saying he is not. This is obvious. There's no room for interpretation here, I explicitly state: "There are some sources which for some reason mention Kovner in connection to this massacre. I think they're garbage and they got it wrong." I'm sorry, but this is just somebody straight up lying about me pretending black is white and white is black. The instructions for the evidence page clearly state "Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all)." This is the opposite of that.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The way we usually do things (or are supposed to do things) is find the best possible sources, then represent them as best we can where they're due, regardless of what we ourselves (or anyone else who isn't an RS per Policy) believes is the truth. You asked us to do something else: you brought us some poor quality sources (by your own admission) and asked us to study their claims. That's not how we work. You might as well have asked us to research some 9/11 conspiracy theories because, you know, there are some poor quality sources on that as well. If you don't have some good sources to back the discussion, then why start it? Why ask us to "establish what was the involvement, if any, of Abba Kovner"? (there's a neutrally-phrased question for you: "what was the involvement, if any, of the CIA?") And he wasn't even mentioned in the article.[101]

But you know what, let's assume that you're being completely honest, and you only wanted to defend Kovner's good name despite the fact he wasn't mentioned in the article even once, let alone derogatorily; why then, despite no one else taking your proposal in two consecutive discussions, are you assuming bad faith on my behalf rather than poor decision-making on yours? François Robere (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

No, as I already pointed out, Kovner's name is mentioned in several sources. Some of them are indeed garbage (as I said myself). But there are also a few possibly legitimate sources which mention him as well. Like this one (Jewish Virtual Library) and this one (Jewish Resistance Against the Holocaust). That is what prompted my question. And it is a relevant question, obviously, since the article is about that very subject. Freakin' a, this is like the EIGHT time that I have to repeat this.

But it actually doesn't matter. Because regardless of why I asked the question, nowhere in anything I said is there any indication that I'm trying to "Suggesting we do OR to involve a Jewish leader in a massacre". When you accuse me of that you are simply lying. And it's not just some plain ol' lie either. It's an obnoxious accusation and a low down attempt to tarnish my reputation. It shows what kind of a person you are Francois.

(and to make matters worse, you have the gall to accuse *me* of "assuming bad faith" after you've, under the best possible interpretation of your action, read in the worst possible motivation into mine) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

But Cohen's book you yourself called "unreliable", and the JVL source doesn't actually place Kovner in Koniuchy - so what did you bring to the discussion? Bad sources and a hunch? Of course it looked like OR. But instead of checking your own conduct you accused Icewhiz of "derailing" the discussion, opened another one with the same sources (that didn't lead anywhere either) and you're now accusing me of "bad faith". Well... that's your style. François Robere (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Because both these sources mention it (and yes, JVL does place him there), as has already been explained. Now, please show where in the discussion I "Suggest we do OR to involve a Jewish leader in a massacre". Or just stop lying about other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to. "You worded it differently but [that's what you were suggesting]."[102] Here's the AGF part, you see: when you make a shoddy suggestion you insist we read it verbatim, but when I make an unrelated statement you take creative freedoms with it, and in either case you won't accept an alternative explanation to what you think is right. François Robere (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey listen buddy. *I* didn't make an odious false allegation about "trying to involve a Jewish leader in a massacre". I did no such thing, I actually did the opposite. You made it up. Let's put it bluntly - you lied. I You're comparing your own dishonest and despicable behavior, to me considering two comments in an AfD as being sufficiently similar that they can be labeled "agree" (rather, as you so strenuously argue "unrelated"). Not even similar. You're deflecting. Because you lied. And you lied about something actually important. And you did it for really really shitty reasons. And the lie you told was a pretty nasty one. But hey look over there SQUIRRELLLL!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF does not justify using anti-semitic and fringe sources

In response to my diff which shows User:Icewhiz using anti-semitic and fringe sources [103] to attack a BLP, Icewhiz claims This is an WP:ABOUTSELF situation [104].

No. This is all kinds of wrong.

First, WP:ABOUTSELF is about stuff like "I graduated from high school in 1998". You *could*, potentially use the subject's own claim like that in an article according to ABOUSELF. It absolutely in no way justifies taking an opinion piece written by the subject and then doing WP:OR on it smear the subject.

Second, it's actually NOT a "WP:ABOUTSELF" situation despite Icewhiz's repeated false claims to that effect. This is NOT a "ABOUSELF" statement by the subject. It's an anti-semitic garbage source writing ABOUT the subject. Icewhiz is simply ... I'm running out of euphemism here ... "misportraying" (?) the situation here. This is indeed (a reprint of) opinion piece by the subject (see first part) but, crucially, it doesn't say ANYTHING like what Icewhiz claims. There's NOTHING in there about "American Jews" as Icewhiz falsely writes in his BLP violating edit.

Here's the thing. If Icewhiz just admitted "I screwed up. I shouldn't have used an anti-semitic source on a BLP", this matter would have been dropped long ago. But it's his repeated denials and deceptions and this lame WP:ABOUTSELF excuse making that shows he's learned absolutely nothing from the episode, and that he still has absolutely no qualms in using garbage sources - despite all his grand posturing about "only high quality academic sources" on talk and arbitration pages - when it suits his purpose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the sources is indeed an oped by the subject but. it. doesn't. say. what. you. wrote. it. says. Reason I keep bringing it up because you keep trying to make excuses for it. And because it's very illustrative of your cynical approach to editing in this topic area in general ("Wikipedia policy applies to thee but not to me") Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This as a piece of writing by the BLP - an oped - published by a wide variety of media outlets. One should also note this was discussed at AE - [105], and that VM repeatedly brings this up (I think this is about number 5 on this particular edit). There was one source (in a string of 4 citations of copies of the same piece of writing - WP:OVERCITE in restrospect) which shouldn't have been used. However, I actually did change my editing following this - for the most part - I've been avoiding using op-eds by BLP subjects of articles (particularly when published in non-mainstream venues) - and try to rely on high quality secondary coverage. Following VM bringing this up at AE and removing this from the article (reverted back in by User:NPalgan2 - with edit summary "restoring views material. note wp:aboutself. questionable sources may be used for statements made by chodakiewicz if there is no doubt as to their authenticity") - I removed the citation and matched the source more closely - diff. VM first raised his objections to the content at AE, not in the article. This was subsequently removed - diff - and I didn't challenge this (in retrospect, I will also admit to the sin of WP:RECENTISM in 2018).Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Much ado about very little. The "antisemitic source used to attack a BLP" angle - it was one source out of four, and they were mostly the BLP's own words. We shouldn't use bad sources, and Icewhiz did right to quickly remove the one. The "this isn't what he wrote" angle isn't much either. The BLP wrote: "March 1968 is mainly seen through the prism of 'Polish anti-Semitism'... This is already emerging in the western media, which the Vistula Stalinist monarchs whisper to. It was they and their heirs who first tried to write in the Polish consciousness as dissidents, then they dared to parasitize Solidarity, then they discredited themselves as a post-communist protective umbrella, and now they function as a 'resistance' of the street and abroad against the democratic decisions of the majority of Polish voters." IIRC Icewhiz took the reference to "Vistula Stalinists" as an allusion to Jews, owing to their historical prevalence in certain parts of Poland; this is at most a minor case of inadvertent SYNTH, not an intentional "smear" like VM claims. Why "minor"? Because it doesn't create a false impression of the BLP: we already cite several sources that claim that he's antisemitic and conspiratorial (counting the Żydokomuna myth among those), and Icewhiz's statement doesn't really add much to that - you can't really smear something that's so badly tarnished. As an aside, I've no idea what the BLP meant in "Vistula Stalinist monarchs", but I wouldn't count Icewhiz's understanding of it out. François Robere (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"The "antisemitic source used to attack a BLP" angle - it was one source out of four" - ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, my bad. That makes it ok. It was JUST ONE itsy bitty teeny weeny anti-semitic source Icewhiz used to attack a BLP. Nevermind, then /s. Lol. Seriously?

But, even that's not true. There were four inline citations. Two of them are actually the same thing twice. So three sources. And you're right, in addition to using an anti-semitic source, and a shady right wing source, Icewhiz also used this source. Wait a minute!?! Isn't this a... ... ... "right wing Catholic source" (audience gasps in collective horror!) ??? Exactly the kind of source that Icewhiz thinks should NOT be used and is tearing his hair out over the fact that Piotrus used a Catholic source somewhere on this very page? Didn't he try to remove a source because, in his words, it was "Catholic"? Yet here he's happy to put in such a ... hold on, I have to steel myself to say it, "Catholic source", himself. And guess what? This source doesn't say anything like what Icewhiz claims. So that kind of actually makes it even worse.

Icewhiz took the reference to "Vistula Stalinists" as an allusion to Jews Yeah, that's HIS problem. He doesn't get to make up what a source says. If a source says "A" then Icewhiz doesn't get to say "well I think the source really meant B so I will put that in instead". Are we editing the same Wikipedia here?

historical prevalence in certain parts of Poland - uh, what??? Seriously, what in the hey are you talking about???

they were mostly the BLP's own words - NO. THEY. WEREN'T. That's kind of the whole point here.

I don't think you're helping him here Francois.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh wait wait wait. We're not done here.

FR: Icewhiz did right to quickly remove the one - except he didn't. He removed the anti-semitic source on June 5th. So Icewhiz's BLP attacking WP:HOAX stayed in the article for two and a half months. That's not "quickly". Additionally, he ONLY removed it AFTER I brought it up at WP:AE (June 4th), meaning, he only removed it because he realized admins would see it and he could get in big trouble.

But we're not done yet.

Icewhiz might have removed the anti-semitic source, two and a half months too late, and only because he got worried admins would notice, but ... he left the fake text, the WP:HOAX in there. In fact that stayed in there as late as January 2019 when I removed it myself

But we're not done yet.

FR, are you sure it was "Vistula Stalinist"? Because Icewhiz disagrees: [106]. Volga, Vistula, they both rivers right? Stalinists, Stalinists, potato, potasium (that typo also stayed in there till Jan 2019). But, explain to me, Francois, how was Icewhiz able to ascertain that the author, when he said "Vistula Stalinists" really meant "American Jews" because, quote (FR), "owing to their (Jewish) historical prevalence in certain parts of Poland". Volga... is not in Poland (yet! ....I'm kidding I'm kidding). Where in hell did he get Volga anyway? Regardless, turns out Icewhiz's WP:HOAX had a second little WP:HOAX inside it.

Sorry, I have to pause here. I have to pause because I am chuckling over the fact that User:Icewhiz JUST PROPOSED a "finding of fact" against me, claiming I don't verify sources (nonsense). Yet here he can't even check and verify which freakin' river is in Poland. Sigh. You can't make this stuff up.

Ok, ok, back to the topic. Now that I wrote it out above there's another puzzling thing here which is so dumb I didn't even notice it at first. How. In. The. World. Do. You. Get. "AMERICAN Jews". Out of. "VISTULA Stalinist". Like, if it was "Polish Jews" then, well, it'd still be completely made up, but at least geographically it would be kind of, sort of, plausible. Possible? But it's "Vistula". Or I guess it could be Volga. Who knows. Not the freakin' Mississippi.

("Vistula Stalinists" just means "Polish Stalinists". "Nadwislanie" is just a colloquial way of saying "Polish")

Ok, 100% serious here. How did you possibly manage to pack so much nonsense into a single paragraph. Your false claims and lame excuses stumble and trip over each other like one legged chickens packed into a small little cage, waiting to be taken to the slaughter line. One lie starts before another one has a chance to finish. I mean, I've had to deal with you guys for the past two years, so I kind of expect this kind of stuff, but even by your usual standards, this was impressive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence by MyMoloboaccount

Placeholder

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Francois Robere and Icewhiz have never disagreed on anything - add FR to the Case

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

[107] Here is literally every single talk page discussion related to Eastern Europein which User:François Robere and User:Icewhiz participated in together, as well as 3 AfDs and 1 SPI. It's 95 different discussions across 24 different pages.

There isn't a SINGLE instance where the two disagree with each other. There are THREE instances where in the same discussion they make comments unrelated to each other. That leaves 92 out of 95 where they agree and 0 (zero) out of 95 where they disagree. This is exhaustive. There are no other conversations on talk which could be looked at (data obtained from Wikipedia Interaction Analyzer).

The list does not include talk page discussions outside the topic area. There were 8 of those (in Israel-Palestine and American Politics). Unsurprisingly in those the two also have each other's back.

We can also look at their edits to articles most of which correspond to these talk page discussions [108]. In this case as well, they make edits in support of each other and revert on each other's behalf, often within seconds of each other.

The best thing that you could say about this, if you're Icewhiz at least, is that FR tends to supports Icewhiz a lot more than vice versa. Icewhiz reciprocates... occasionally.

Anticipating some possible ripostes here, the same thing is NOT true, for editors who find themselves in dispute with these two. I myself have disagreed at some point with, well, probably everyone on Wikipedia, but certainly the other people involved in the case.

Francois Robere needs to be added to this case. A chance should be given for others to present evidence regarding their behavior (this can be limited since they're not nearly as active as Icewhiz).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this an end around the evidence phase? The pattern of cross support (and cross-editing) between Volunteer Marek, Piotrus, ‎MyMoloboaccount, , Tatzref, and GizzyCatBella (pre-TBAN, post-TBAN in topics outside of TBAN) is actually more instructive - and rather clear in an interaction analyzer (time gated to post-2018). To a lesser extent - My Very Best Wishes (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#My Very Best Wishes: Tag teaming and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#My Very Best Wishes - Volunteer Marek prior arbitration request). This has included support for dubious sources (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Pitorus dubious sourcing, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Removing unsuitable sources has been challenging - e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray is instructive. Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. It's clearly impossible for two unrelated editors active in the same topic area to reach similar conclusions independently.
2. I find your table lacking. For example, despite including several links from Archive #4, you somehow missed this discussion, and you marked two AfDs where our votes disagreed as "agreements".[109][110] You marked this unrelated comment as "sniping", and read this comment - too literally and erroneously, but not for the first time - as "admitting he has no idea what the argument is about". You also included some discussions where we were all in agreement, or where uninvolved editors were in agreement with us, like this one.
3. There are of course other cases where I disagreed with him, including in this very page,[111] but I see how it would be easy for you to miss them given that, as I already implied,[112] I can disagree with someone without needing to tell them to "stop making shit up".
4. But that doesn't really matter: the main problem with your argument is that there's nothing wrong with agreeing with someone as long as it's not used for "stonewalling" or for forcing consensus - and it never was. I never ignored a question or shied from a discussion in this area, nor have I voted "blindly" after anyone else's vote. This can't be said for several of the editors mentioned above, who have on occasion jumped into a discussion, blurbed "I agree", then disappeared[113][114][115][116] - this is the sort of behavior that should be sanctioned, not reasoned agreement and openness for discussion. François Robere (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

" It's clearly impossible for two unrelated editors active in the same topic area to reach similar conclusions independently" - with nearly 100% frequency? Maybe not "impossible" but very very unlikely.

"you marked two AfDs where our votes disagreed as "agreements"" - nah, you worded it differently but you were agreeing.

" you somehow missed " - seems you're right. I missed one. I updated the data and made a visual representation, presented for your edification on the right -->

FR and Icewhiz in talk page discussions

Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint And there you have it: a typical VM provocation. I say "there are problems with your table" - he says "nah". I give a reasoned argument as to why his approach is meaningless - he ignores it. He "filibusters" against me (for the fourth time now?), refusing to listen to any explanation that's not his own, and just to drive his own stubbornness home he adds a chart. A misleading chart, based on an erroneous analysis, which he won't amend no matter what you say. If this isn't needless, provocative baiting, I don't know what is. François Robere (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: - if something like this is so problematic, why not leave it for the Arbs to see? You've made your objection. The Arbs can read it. If this is needless, provocative baiting, won't you want the Arbs to notice it in its entirety? starship.paint (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No-no, you're right. It was a gut reaction. That's why I opted for a reply the second time around. François Robere (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"a typical VM provocation" - lol. Disagreement is not a provocation. I see you've picked up on Icewhiz's use of hyperbolic and exaggerated language.

"I give a reasoned argument as to why his approach is meaningless" - no. You said "you missed this one" and "I disagree with these two". Nothing about "approach", which is just counting up the stuff.

"A misleading chart, based on an erroneous analysis" - chart is fine, analysis is fine. It's just counting stuff. The most you managed is to find a single small error.

"which he won't amend no matter what you say" - nope, I amended it. I corrected the one error you did manage to find, by adding one "disagree" to the chart. Thing is, 1 disagree vs. 92 agrees... that's not gonna show up very clearly. Yes, I know you got to squint to see it. But that's because you guys really do agree 92/93 times. I can't change that, that's the data.

Not sure why you're bringing User:Starship.paint into this. Did I miss something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - FR removed your chart. I reverted. starship.paint (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Anna Poray was one of plenty of (more or less) Polish pages attacked by Icewhiz. It wasn't a good time to ponder quality of the pages. Don't wage a war if you want academic discussion.Xx236 (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at the editor interaction analyzers, one can see that François Robere followed edits by Icewhiz and VM. It would be just fine, unless a few things: (a) he was always coming to support Icewhiz with reverts (one needs to provide more such diffs though) and comments, (b) he took such an active participation with such poor evidence in this arbitration case [117], and (c) note evidence by Pudeo [118]. As about my alleged "tag teaming", this is just another ridiculous accusation by Icewhiz. I invite anyone to look at these diffs [119]. Only ONE of them is main space edit (which was immediately reverted by François Robere [120] who falsely claimed a "BLP issue" in edit summary). Others are comments on community noticeboards or other community discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Support on noticeboards and article talk pages has much more impact than reverts on main space articles. Articles being in the WP:WRONGVERSION (for whichever direction) is a transient thing. Talk pages and noticeboard discussions actually form lasting consensus. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. All my comments on these noticeboards had exactly ZERO result. My comments on WP:AE were completely ignored (if you compare them with conclusions by Sandstein). The discussions about sources, especially on RSNB are not binding. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

We can meet for tea, then - most of my comments on AE were also ignored! My RfCs around here are usually productive, though; one can only surmise our fellow editors are smarter than our admins... François Robere (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and the chart and data show overwhelming support between you and FR on article talk pages. I'll do one for noticeboards, don't worry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Question: What would I see if I checked your interactions with VM, and what would that suggest to me if I passed it through a naive analysis like VM's? What would such an analysis of VM and Piotrus's interactions suggest?
2. §a is WP:BRD.
3. How is §b "poor evidence"? I made a claim about a particular thread, and provided the thread and my analysis of it. What else is needed there?
4. I already rebutted Pudeo's claims in the "Evidence" section. There's not much there, and you're welcome to comment.
5. which was immediately reverted by François Robere who falsely claimed a "BLP issue" in edit summary The revision included the statement "based on no research, Michael Meng speculates that...". This is a BLP vio against Michael Meng, an Associate Professor of History at UNC-Chapel Hill. I explained the removal on Talk, and I mentioned Talk in the edit summary. François Robere (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"What would such an analysis of VM and Piotrus's interactions suggest" - go for it. Wikipedia Interaction Analyzer is here. I did my part and it clearly shows near 100% agreement between you and Icewhiz, you can do your part if you want to make that argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

We're past Evidence, Marek. The admins gave no indication that they'll accept yours. If they do, I'll ask for an extension and follow up. François Robere (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses. You can post it here. You made assertions. You back them up. (and actually admins have made no indication of ... well, anything so far).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well, here's another reason to add FR to the case. He's so involved in it that he's actually editing other parties comments [121] (@Bradv:). That should be pretty clear.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Context of historical fabrications

Some issues on Polish Holocaust complicity are debated by mainstream Polish voices. However many issues related to the Holocaust, antisemitism, post-war violence are not contested by anyone of note.

Jewish Bolshevism, and in its Polish form - Żydokomuna, is an antisemitic canard. It has a long history in Poland. It was used to justify anti-Jewish pogroms by Haller's Army in the post-WWI Polish–Soviet War. It was a dominant theme in the antisemitic discourse in the Second Polish Republic. During WWII, "Żydokomuna" was used by the nationalist underground to justify the killing of Jewish fugitives in the countryside who were seen as sympathetic to communist (Polish and Soviet) partisans (catch-22 - in many areas the communist partisans were the only ones willing to accept Jewish fugitives). Following the war it was used by the nationalist rebellion ("cursed soldiers") to justify killing Jews seen as sympathetic to the post-war government. This is still used in antisemitic discourse in Poland today.

Turning a drab election notice into a "Jewish welcome banner" (2015, 2015, 2017) fits within "Żydokomuna" discourse.

In regards to the 1941 pogroms (introduced by Poeticbent 2009-2011 - but defended in 2015) - while there was some public debate in Poland on the Jedwabne pogrom circa 2001-3 following the publication of Neighbors and during the IPN investigation - the events in Jedwabne and surrounding towns in which Polish citizens (with limited German involvement) carried out anti-Jewish pogroms (including the burning alive of victims in barns in Jedwabne and Radziłów) are not debated by any mainstream element. The president of Poland apologized for Jedwabne back in 2001. For the past 15 years - discourse over Jedwabne is limited to fringe far-right denialist elements. Inserting a denialist narrative into Jedwabne pogrom would be met with a rather swift revert or challenge as this is a well watched article. However, inserting content that denies Jedwabne as well as the local atrocity in one of 23 small towns that are seldom watched by editors - may persist for years (almost a decade!). Poeticbent, being involved in the Jedwabne pogrom article as far back as 2006,[122] and being one of the main editors of the article,[123] was well aware of sourcing on Jedwabne and surrounding towns. The text he inserted to Radziłów and Stawiski not only denied the local atrocity but also denied Jedwabne (by stating that the supposed German action in Radziłów/Stawiski was also carried out in the same manner in Jedwabne). This denial - fits into a very specific peg in Poland.

Editing Chełmno extermination camp (in 2013) fits into this discourse: "young Poles have a sense that Polish suffering during World War II might not be acknowledged enough if Jewish suffering is highlighted. ... Denial of the fact that only Jews and Roma were condemned to death on the basis of their identity may have something to do with the strength of that sense of unique suffering in the national consciousness.. There are no reliable sources (including not the Majdanek museum website used as a citation) stating Chełmno was "targeted at removal of Jews and Poles from all nearby towns and villages".

The edits to Belzec extermination camp (in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2015) to remove (and in the process - misrepresent the cited source which contradicts) Polish grave-digging is related to a recent public debate, but again - these are facts that aren't disputed by anyone of note - and for Belzec are well-known and publicized from the late 40s. The wartime grave-digging is what prompted the Nazis to guard the vacant Belzec, and other extermination camps, after they shut down the camps. The release of Gross's Golden Harvest in 2011, which in respect to Belzec really said nothing new, did trigger "several attempts to deny historical facts".

Post-war violence against Jews, the most infamous incident being the Kielce pogrom, isn't disputed by any mainstream element. Poland's post-communist government apologized in 1996. Anti-Jewish violence being one of the factors for the mass departure of Jews from post-war Poland is not disputed by anyone of note - this was well known from 1946 onward and well covered in the relevant literature. As in other countries, there is a small camp of denialists in Poland who would deny this - and would frame Jewish departure as merely a move to "greener pastures". Poeticbent's creation([124]) is contradicted by the very source he was citing. Poeticbent had edited Kielce pogrom back in 2006, and is one of the top editors on the article - [125] - not a topic he is unfamiliar with. In a lesser watched article such as this - this lasted a decade.

These edits had a context, which is far from innocent.Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As of yet - no methodical review of Poeticbent's edits was performed (AFAIK). I believe such a review is warranted - e.g. similar to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise work over here: User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks.Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Even if Poeticbent was active, a bunch of edits over the ~15 years, with something like an average of one, maybe 2 problematic diffs a year would warrant at best a warning to be more careful with source selection and WP:SYNTH. Given that he is not active, this is an exercise in futility, given that I am not aware of any serious challenges to Icewhiz's attempt to fix those issues. Each and every single article he cites above (Żydokomuna, Jedwabne pogrom, Chełmno extermination camp, Belzec extermination camp and Kielce pogrom) has been stable for that (and that includes occasional edits to them by Icewhiz that, I repeat, have not been challenged by anyone, outside maybe of an occasional WP:BRD; there is explicitly no edit warring or such going on in those articles, nor have there been for years, if ever). What is the ArbCom supposed to say here? Some content needs fixing, keep it up? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:HOAX requires explicit intent by user to mislead. With Poeticbent's photo caption we don't know the intent. With Icewhiz's BLP attack we know the intent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Since User:Icewhiz brought WP:HOAX into all this (I was under the impression that HOAX referred to hoax articles or at least long entire sections, not single lines of disputed text in article but whatever), let's talk about WP:HOAX.

For something to be a WP:HOAX rather than just an error or even a simple POV misrepresentation, there has to be deliberate intent. So let's look at two potential-HOAXes. Poeticbent's caption of the photo from 2016 and Icewhiz's attack on a BLP.

We know both are wrong. The banner in the photo is not a welcome banner. It's an announcement of an election. Chodkiewicz never wrote anything about "American Jews". He referred to "Polish Stalinists". Is either or both HOAXes?

With Poeticbent not here to defend himself it's hard to determine his intent. The underlying source where he got the photo [126] does mention photographs with banners welcoming the Soviets. It does refer to "this photograph" which kind of indicates that it's referring to this particular photograph. Presumably, Poeticbent does not speak Yiddish so he couldn't read the sign. Still, there's some problems here. Poeticbent *assumes* the text is referring to the photo, which is a bit ORish. The text also says that these photos were "Soviet propaganda", which should've sent up lots of red flags. I think there's definitely some WP:OR here and sloppy sourcing. But there is no indication of bad intent.

On the other hand, with Icewhiz's BLP smear of Chodakiewicz, it's 100% obvious that Icewhiz's intent was to portray the subject in worst possible light, by pretending the subject said something anti-semitic. A simple search of Chodakiewicz's essay [127] shows that the word "American" (or anything close) does not appear in the source. Hence, "American Jews", which is what Icewhiz pretended the subject said, does not appear. Also, for an article in Polish, Icewhiz could've used google translate (it would've been good enough). Poeticbent could not have used google translate for text inside a photograph in Yiddish. Icewhiz also seems to have gotten OTHER parts of Chodakiewicz's essay correct (author does indeed say that March 1968 events were the doing of the communist party - which they were). So Icewhiz was able to correctly ascertain OTHER parts of the article, hence he knew very well that the source did not say anything about "American Jews".

There are also several a aggravating circumstances concerning Icewhiz's edit, which make it far worse, and far more likely to be a purposeful HOAX than Poeticbent's mis-captioning.

1. To legitimize his HOAX, Icewhiz also included an explicitly anti-semitic source of the sort he publicly claims should be removed (at least when others are looking). This source is NOT by the BLP subject. This leads us to...
2. Icewhiz tried to falsely justify his edit by invoking WP:ABOUTSELF. Even under most generous interpretation (that's not what the policy is about), this would only work IF Chodakiewicz himself had written what Icewhiz falsely claims he wrote. But he didn't. Icewhiz made it up.
3. Icewhiz's edits applied to a BLP. Smears like this could be potentially damaging to a person's academic career and can have very serious consequences. This is *exactly* the kind of edits that WP:BLP was written to protect people (and the encyclopedia) from.

So I think there's pretty good evidence that Icewhiz acted with full intention here. By his own definition of WP:HOAX, he is the one who made a violation here with much more serious implications.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Already discussed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#WP:ABOUTSELF does not justify using anti-semitic and fringe sources, 2 June 2018 AE - filed against FR, but where this issues was discussed by admins, VM, and myself, 3 July AE, and there might be a few other discussions where this was raised by VM and discussed. Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed and, along with other issues, deemed "too complex for AE", which is why this is exactly the right time and place to consider it. I would also note that virtually all your allegations have been "already discussed" as well - are you saying that it's okay for you bring up the same diffs over and over again but others can't ask for ArbCom to consider previous issue? Is this one of those "Wikipedia policy for thee but not for me" things that you do?

Can you provide a good faithed, plausible explanation for your apparent WP:HOAX against a BLP subject, that does not involve false claims and excuses of WP:ABOUTSELF? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Aquillion: - I have actually not gone through Poeticbent's edit history - I have cleaned up use of Mark Paul, NCZAS, Nasz Dziennik, and other sources. I have also searched for langauge phrases that were indicative of issues. These searches did lead to quite a bit of Poeticbent authored material (as Poeticbent inserted Mark Paul throughout the project, and used very particular sources) - but this was not targeted at Poeticbent. The only users whose edits I did comb were from this this SPI (last batch connected to Poeticbent) - which were involved in Stawiski. I also actively went through towns related to Jedwabne, ghettos, extermination camps, and other articles. Going through this material led to alot of Poeticbent content - but at first I was not aware he was the actual author in each case (e.g. the socks, or edits that were made long ago). Most of the hoaxes (CKZP being the exception) entered ìnto evidence were found by examining articles and only after finding the issue - looking at article history (frankly - given the large number of Poeticnent edits - going through them edit by edit would probably be unproductive). I also found issues unrelated to Poeticbent - e.g. August 2017[128] - which I corrected. Some finds were not part of an organized search - e.g. the "Jewish welcome" image I spotted looking at the article (in an unrelated context) and thinking it did not make sense (and after zooming the image and reading the text on the sign - it led to a few more searches). There probably is merit for a through review of Poeticbent's images on commons + captions on wiki - but I have not done this yet.Icewhiz (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

e.g. at this AE on the Stawiski hoax Poeticbent is not discussed - even though it was a confirmed sock + Poeticbent reverted the content back in over the years - I don't think I was aware of him being the original author at that point. VM stated - "If you want to blame somebody for that text, then blame whoever put it in: [129], which was this guy." - but there is no indication he or anyone else looked at Lewinowicz and saw that Lewinowicz was in the batch confirmed to Poeticbent (in a case under Loosmark). The content in Stawiski was fixed by me in March 2018 - prior to Poeticbent's TBAN.Icewhiz (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus - as I stated above, I was not aware (nor does it seem were others in the AE discussion) that Poeticbent was the original author of this hoax. However, the nature of fabrication here is self-evident - turning an anti-Jewish pogrom by Poles into a tale of Jewish persecution of Poles followed by Germans killing Jews (save "Some Poles, who emerged from their forest hideaways, including prisoners released by the Nazis from the NKVD prisons,[4] were led to acts of revenge-killing in German presence (approximately 6 suspects...) - is rather self evident. Particularly given that the same fabrication was performed in other towns (e.g. Radziłów) in a manner unsupported and contradicted by sources. Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus - leaving aside source selection (an issue in and of itself - e.g. WP:SPSes by Paul, Poray, and Kurek and a whole slew of other such sources) - Poeticbent's edits (under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes) are unsupported, and even contradicted, by the sources he did cite. And lets not pretend here - this was a pattern (extending to beyond the two examples I cited) of Jedwabne pogrom obfuscation - in lesser traveled articles. Poeticbent was very well versed in the source material - he knew precisely what he was doing . Elsewhere - this edit to Kielce Ghetto (created by Poeticbent with extensive rescue content - wonder why?) - diff - attributing " direct involvement of the Stalinist troops (official findings of the Institute of National Remembrance)" (none others named... not quite the usual presentation) in regards to the well known Kielce pogrom (an article that on enwiki has related issues - see USHMM) is instructive.Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Does anyone else find it odd that Poeticbent is a party to this case while the users that have been the most active in the proceedings here are not? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of keeping them on unless arbcom wants to modify their topic ban in someway (my preference is for rescinding it in all honesty since we're already here, and it's been a year) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Poeticbent has no active editing restrictions as their topic ban was only for 6 months. It also isn't entirely clear why that user retired (having made no public indication the editing restriction was the reason). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Since you pinged me about the reason for his retirement, I can actually shed a bit more light about that. In my informal capacity as the co-founder and organizer of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, I try to reach out to members of that WP who become inactive (context for other editors: this is also something related to my peer reviewed research on editor's retirement [130]; anyone interested in reading this, see Library Genesis). When I noticed that Poeticbent has not resumed any editing, I sent him a message about it. Obviously I can't quote from his reply without his permission, but in summary, he told me that he felt treated extremely unfairly, receiving an out of proportion and out of blue sanction (several months of topic ban for a single NPA diff) from an AE admin he considered biased (coincidentally, the same admin that Volunteer Marek mentions in his evidence). In addition, Poeticbent mentioned that this AE thread was part of the battleground environment that he found extremely stressful. He therefore concluded that after over 10 years here, and creation of numerous articles (including hundreds of DYKs and GA on Treblinka camp) his 'reward' is accusation of antisemitism/incivility and a sanction in the topic area he was the most prolific editor in, therefore he feels that his time and effort are better spent elsewhere, and has no intention of returning. PS. I do wonder, btw, if someone took an effort to notify him of this ArbCom outside posting on his talk page which he may no longer read? Is there any rule about notifying retired editors outside of regular talk page message or ping? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: [Thank you for the ping] That is certainly a question that Bradv is better equipped to answer than me (being a clerk and all). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• My understanding is that a key point in the history of this case is that after Poeticbent was topic-banned, Icewhiz essentially went through their edit history to undo anything he perceived as biased, under the interpretation that Poeticbent's topic-ban meant that all his edits on the topic were untrustworthy; and that this is central to the conflict because it spread it over a wide number of articles and over edits that were comparatively unobjectionable when viewed individually. (I am unsure if WP:HOUND applies in this case, when reviewing the edits of a topic-banned user.) Clearly Icewhiz considers Poeticbent to be central, having included them in the request and specifically asking for a finding that Poeticbent created a number of anti-Jewish hoaxes. In that respect it is inevitable that the case will have to involve some examination of Poeticbent's conduct, in order to see if Icewhiz is correct - and, if not, whether Icewhiz' behavior towards Poeticbent goes beyond WP:AGF, violates WP:HOUND, etc. In retrospect, thinking about it, I feel that the lopsided topic ban for Poeticbent may be one of the root causes of the WP:AGF breakdown, since it's clear that Icewhiz in particular took it as vindication (even though, as I understand it, it was related to civility and not bias.) I haven't examined the evidence in depth, so I can't say whether that is true or not, but if it is not, then a general statement of "no, Poeticbent's topic-ban was inappropriate, or at least doesn't imply any content issues; back down and stop contesting their edits just because they made them" might be useful. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• I concur that the reason for why one of the most prolific editors in this content area has been effectively hounded away is something that should be investigated further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Aquillion That's ... not ... quite ... accurate. I'm basically the active editor in this case opposite to Icewhiz. Thing is, all those articles that Poeticbent edited, the sources like Mark Paul that Icewhiz removed - vast majority of them *I* have never edited, or at best made some minor edits like years ago. I've never used Mark Paul, or Nasz Dziennik or whatever. (I don't know if Poeticbent used Nasz Dziennik, I don't see anything in the evidence about that, it may be just just Icewhiz is pretending again) When Icewhiz went through and undid Poeticbent's or Loosemark's contributions... I didn't object. When he removed that photo that he keeps parading about and screaming about "hoaxes!" I... didn't even notice (so much for me "hounding" him). In his request for the case Icewhiz made a huge deal about the article on Szczuczyn pogrom, making it seem like he had to fight some heroic battle against evil "Polish nationalists" to NPOV the article. Nonsense. Look at the edit history of that article [131]. Nobody involved in this case (whether as party or commentator) reverted him or objected. He had a perfectly free hand to write whatever he wanted. Look at the AfD for that article [132]. There I'm voting "keep" same as Icewhiz (though Icewhiz made some batshit crazy comments in that AfD about other stuff). Same goes for his removals of Nasz Dziennik or whatever. Nobody objected. But Icewhiz tries to make himself look like some kind of martyr in this regard. Pffffffttttt.

So no, the problem isn't with Poeticbent v. Icewhiz. Or Icewhiz v. some sketchy sources that wound up in some articles at some point. The problem goes back before that and it involves a couple dozens of articles where Poeticbent wasn't even active.

Best I can tell, the only reason he added Poeticbent and Loosmark (who's been gone something like 10 years) to this case is because he knew that he's got nothing but lame insinuations and a couple weak complaints about "incivility" against me (you'd be incivil too if Icewhiz accused you of things he's accused me of), so he added them because he wants to associate me with them. He's basically hoping that the Arbs will be lazy, will barely look at the diffs but will think "well, Loosmark did some bad stuff and he was Polish, and Volunteer Marek is Polish and Icewhiz is against both of them, so Volunteer Marek must have done something bad". Icewhiz does crap like that ALL. THE. TIME. He doesn't like source X (say, Polish historian) but he can't argue it's unreliable. So he brings up a completely different source Y (Nasz Dziennik!!!!) which is clearly unreliable and then pretend that because source Y is unreliable he gets to remove source X. All. The. Time. THAT is what the problem is. And he's doing the exact same thing by bringing Loosmark and Poeticbent into it.

(Having said all that I think it's shitty to talk about people when they can't respond so the above is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of Poeticbent's edits - I can address those somewhere else) Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that Icewhiz has a tendency to exaggerate everything and label disagreements about sources "HOAXES!!!!!". He was even admonished for that at one point (iirc), cut it out for awhile, but now he's brought it out again for the ArbCom case. Here's something funny (in a sad kind of way) - Icewhiz keeps accusing Poeticbent of HOAX (!!!!!!!!) because Poeticbent mis-captioned this photo. Obviously Poeticbent doesn't speak Yiddish, most people don't so whether this was intentional or not can't actually be deduced. Here's the thing: Icewhiz HIMSELF mis-captions the photo on commons and his user page and Bialystok Ghetto. The photo is from 1939 not 1941 (note also that none of Icewhiz's fixes were reverted or objected to even though, once again, he pretends like he had to fight tooth and nail to get this done). This is pertinent because it determines who - Germans or Soviets - was in control of the town when it was taken. So by Icewhiz's OWN (sketchy) definition of WP:HOAX, which he tries to apply to Poeticbent, he himself was spreading HOAXes (!!!!!) on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Question to User:Icewhiz. You say "The content in Stawiski was fixed by me in March 2018 - prior to Poeticbent's TBAN". Did Poeticbent object to you fixing that? And did you ask him for any expalantion of his edits related to this article back when he was still active? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Errr, the article still contains a referenced sentence on " Some Poles were motivated by revenge against earlier Soviet supporters."[133] Do you think this is an unreliable source? On a side note, a lot of content added in the first 10 years of Wikipedia history was poorly referenced. It is commendable to clean it up, but to accuse editors who added them of purposeful hoaxes is improper. Again, people make errors. Perhaps you knew everything about reliable sources and such when you joined Wikipedia; but I for one know that a lot of content I've added in the years 2004-2010 should be better referenced. Has it occurred to you that Poeticbent also might not have been an expert in finding reliable sources back then, and what he did, per WP:AGF, was simply to use bad sources that later, in this decade, he wouldn't have used? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I really doubt ArbCom is going to issue a finding about edits from ~10-15 years ago, particularly as anything more recent like the diff you cite is not particularly controversial (changing Soviet to Stalinist...). Anyway, I agree a lot of Poeticbents old edits need improvement, but, news flash, this is true for a lot of other edits from that time, even mine. If you were active on Wikipedia 10-15 years ago and if your edits from that time would stand to scrutiny of time better, well, good for you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Stawiski isn't closed. The text accuses one (of two) local priests. They were arrested by Germans and later killed. The fact is important.Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xx236: I encourage you to post sources on Talk:Stawiski. I tried looking for information on Soviet or German crimes on non-Jewish inhabitants of that village, but couldn't find much. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Piotrus and Aquillion: please have a look at this 2015 edit to Lviv_pogroms_(1941). I'm referring to the addition starting with His accusations were not entirely false. [134], including the fringe author "Mark Paul". As added, this was WP:SYNTH that had the effect of supporting / expanding on the Nazi report. The wording seemingly justified the atrocity: the Jews had allegedly brought it upon themselves because in the [Lviv] personnel of the Soviet security police at the time, the high percentage of Jews was striking. In addition, the "[Lviv]" part looks like an invention since Davies does not mention "Lviv / Lwow", as cited in pages 32-33, that I could find. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @K.e.coffman: I would support reverting that edit due to the valid concerns you raise. I said elsewhere on those pages, that if Poeticbent came back, I would caution him to be extra careful when it comes to any topics related to zydokomuna stereotype, as he certainly seems to give it undue credence, and in this singular area I too find his editing to be problematic. But since there are no signs he is coming back, what are we talking about, really? (If, of course, ArbCom seriously considers asking him to come back, I'd be happy to propose and endorse any motion/remedy also warning him to be more careful in that particular topic area). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That phrase was removed soon after by another contributor [135], and Poeticbent did not object - based on the edit history of the page. End of story. If Poeticbent objected, that could mean something. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Fact. Poeticbent made some poorly referenced edits, mostly from 10-15 years ago. Fact. He did not try to defend them when challenged. Instead of commending him on not fighting for a lost cause... he gets accused of some extensive hoax-propagating operation. mud sticks. Sigh. Seriously, people wonder why good editors retire? Incidentally, Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime is likely a notable adage and should be stubbed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Slew - Icewhiz uses the word to degrade sources he doesn't like. At the same time he accepts 200,000 hoax.

Protest - I'm unable to read 227,075 bytes of this discussions. Please create some structure.Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)