Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Pre-PD release comments (much threaded) about when the PD will be released.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PD update Owing principally to a workload arising out of WP:FRAMBAN, we are running several days behind schedule and have not yet finished drafting a proposed decision (PD). Thank you for waiting patiently. I and my colleagues are aware you are waiting and will have a decision published for voting as soon as possible. AGK ■ 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Just to update everybody: We're aiming to have a PD early next week. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC) I have asked on the mailing list if there are any updates for this case. SQLQuery me! 02:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Sorry again, all. I think I was a tad too optimistic in my previous post, and worse, didn't come back to point that out when it became obvious. I don't think I have a specific time frame but the drafters might. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC) About a month late, the drafters are yet to specify any approximate timeline for posting the PD, parties are back to waging the same battles even over here ..... ∯WBGconverse 12:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC) I know... ...that there are major, important distractions that the Committee must deal with, but really, over a month late for the PD seems like it should be a wake-up call for the drafting Arbs, @AGK: and @Worm That Turned:. Can the community and the participants at the very least get a realistic idea of when the PD can be expected? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, I'm aware, we're significantly late. We initially had 3 drafters on this case, but one has left the committee, and I have moved over to taking point on the Fram case. This leaves a single arbitrator to manage one of the most complex / content heavy cases we've had in a little while. We probably could have suspended the case, while we dealt with the one that was at a higher priority to the community as a whole, but we chose not to, leading to one of our longest delays in recent years. I will say that having looked at the drafting process, the vast majority is written, only a couple more findings need to be done. I don't have a specific date for you, but I will tentatively say "soon". @AGK: is that a fair assessment? WormTT(talk) 09:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC) AGK -- ?? ∯WBGconverse 11:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC) I've nudged the clerk's mailing list to try to get a response. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Here’s a suggestion. Have this proposed decision be due 1 week after the Fram’s case is over. Is that alright, AGK? starship.paint (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I note AGK hasn't edited since 21 August, and hasn't edited this case since longer ago than that. Have the arbs heard from them more recently than their last edit? If not is Worm That Turned or any other arb prepared to take responsibility for getting a PD out? Does Starship.paint's 1 week after the Fram case PD seem achievable? Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC) @Worm That Turned: this time without the typos. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC) At this point, Thryduulf even if it's an extra two weeks after the Fram decision, I'm fine with it. There simply has to be a commitment, something tangible. starship.paint (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Myself and a few clerks now have raised the outstanding timeline and increasingly wait for the PDs to be posted. The drafters have already done some work on the PDs, so I have proposed that the rough draft to be posted with the understanding it is not ready for voting. Additions and revisions can be discussed with the consultation of the community. When things are in better shape, voting may begin. Also, I have asked if others drafters could be added, similar to the Rama case. Mkdw talk 19:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC) All positive things. Thanks Mkdw. starship.paint (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow up by MJL

Any word on how this motion will effect this case? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: own section, please. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: (1) Please don't shout.
(2) You should be taking seriously the fact someone is trying to impersonate you.
(3) Just an FYI, Icewhiz was recently blocked as an AE action.
(4) I'd be awfully skeptical of a policy that made it mandatory to consent to CU in order to participate in arbitration. Some people rather like their privacy.
(5) I like the new signature.
–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Please just accept that Poeticbent is gone and likely isn't going to come back without an exceptional change in circumstances. The fact that you can't just this go is why I made this proposal.
You're a great content editor, so it really kills me inside to see you spend so much time worrying about this instead of improving article sourcing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Polocaust is probably not derogatory (I believe it reasonable to say in certain contexts it could be), but it certainly is a politically charged term and unnecessarily inflammatory.
Also, I really don't get your reordering names on a list has to be Holocaust denial when the phrase used by Icewhiz was Holocaust denial/distortion (inclusive). It seems pretty clear that it is distortion. It wouldn't be Holocaust denial to say you think there were a million more Jewish people who died than has been been reported by academics; it's distortion. You may mean denial as a form of intent rather than action, but that just seems needlessly complicated because Icewhiz said distortion anyways. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: really isn't an inflammatory term IMO; it's the term used by the Polish government itself –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Really though, all I am saying is that it has come to light that certain editors find the term offensive all with a variety of backgrounds. I'm not saying Icewhiz should be sanctioned over it by any means, but I do think we should avoid its use as a term in favor of much more specific language where possible.
Regardless, the primary concern I would have is how this is a BLP violation. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by François Robere

Are the Arbs taking note of ongoing affairs in the topic area? In the past week we've had:

1. Editors attempt to exclude antisemitism (or some expressions thereof) and Islamophobia from Racism in Poland ([1][2][3][4]), shifting the focus of Racism in Poland from minorities to the Polish majority.
2. Editors attempt to censor RS-backed statements that compare antisemitism and Islamophobia in Islamophobia in Poland.
3. One editor inserting a whole pile of PRIMARY, cherry-picked or otherwise misrepresented sources in Racism in Poland [5].
4. Same editor violates BLP and SYNTH in an attempt to discredit Jan T. Gross. They're backed by other editors [6][7][8], who then copy the offending content to Golden Harvest (book).
5. Editors reject consensus of a move discussion in a push to retitle sections in Jewish ghettos in Europe [9].
6. A new editor pops up in the discussion [10]; seems to have working knowledge of Wikipedia and uses similar expressions to another editor - indications of a possible SOCK.

François Robere (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Asking the Arbs to review these [11][12] thread and advise. Molobo has been piling on PRIMARY and/or irrelevant sources on a single statement (see lead here) and evading discussion. It's getting ridiculous: after claiming Prussia was a "region in Poland" ("I am sorry that I didn't realize you didn't knew that") and asking that I enumerate my objections in the very thread I opened to discuss my objections, I've posted a 15 point numbered list to which he replied with "Please could you number your statements". Molobo's conduct is clearly intended to wear out one's patience - a disruptive and provocative behavior if ever was one - that should be dealt with firmly. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Molobo

1. There was no "wholesale deletion of information on Nazi atrocities". Those are the bad sources I mentioned in §3, which the Arbs are welcome to examine themselves. Molobo has been mentioned in this case by both Ealdgyth and myself; this is an example why.
2. The admins are also welcome to examine my alternative formulation,[13] which mirrors what we've achieved at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Background after a lengthy discussion; it reflects the general consensus in the field, and does not in any way understate any nation's suffering. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply to VM

1. You'll notice I'm not actually defending that specific inclusion anywhere; rather, I object to the wholesale trimming of anything that seems even mildly offensive to some of the other editors, which is why I continue supporting reverting to an older revision, of which that 13th cen. reference happens to be part, as a baseline from which we can discuss everything else. However, I did provide a quote in NPOVN from George M. Fredrickson's Racism: A Short History, which ties all of it together. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Active sockmaster

@SQL: Please alert the Arbs to an active sockmaster in the topic area.[14] François Robere (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: VM: two other editors publicly supported the CU (Sir Joseph and starship.paint) which resulted in the discovery of five more socks, so saying it was "bogus" seems... well, bogus. François Robere (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

On proposed decisions and findings of fact

• FOF 4:
  • We have "Francophile", "Anglophile"; what's so wrong with "Polophile" (or Polophilic)?[15]
  • You can disagree with Icewhiz's comparison[16] on any number of grounds, but say that it's "unnecessarily inflammatory" and sanction him for it? We're talking a law that drew criticisms from anyone from Yad Vashem[17] to Human Rights Watch,[18] so mentioning Iran and NK in that particular context isn't entirely, completely, unnecessarily and inflammatorily out of place. Unless, of course, we're not allowed to discuss censorship...
• FOF 5: "Both parties" is a false equivalence: you only give one example of Icewhiz "assuming the worst", while VM had repeatedly against several editors even on case pages (eg. here). The two are really not the same. Also, I find it curious you specifically avoided the terms "personal attacks" and "aspersions" while describing some of those behaviors.[19][20]
• FOF 10: These aren't some "random smears" of respectable scholars - these are some highly controversial, well-off-mainstream scholars (MJC,[21] EK[22]). Again, there are a bunch of arguments you can make on Icewhiz's characterization of sources, but putting it out there like the sort of career-wrecking, lawsuit-motivating material WP:BLP was meant to prevent is beyond misleading. What's more, by focusing this topic-wide assertion on Icewhiz, you're neglecting the more frequent and more egregious attacks made by others against scholars like Jan Gross, Jan Grabowski, Shmuel Krakowski and Joanna Michlic.
• I notice you've said little about administerial conduct in this case. You list 10 AE cases spread over a year (FOF 3), but you don't opine on why we had so many. You mention a "positively-reviewed" sourcing restriction (FOF 13), but you don't mention that such restrictions were requested and ignored several times. You mentioned RSN and RfCs (FOF 12), but not the admin boards. You mentioned Icewhiz's recent block (FOF 14), but nothing about its circumstances or overwhelming disagreement of the community with the decision.
• PR 2: There's very little in the FOF section to justify a bilateral I-Ban.
• PR 3: Same. We're talking about a prolific editor who has presented a strong case on the issues that are so ubiquitous in this topic area, and has done more than just about anyone else to resolve them. Do you really think a year-long T-ban would benefit the topic area?

François Robere (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply to SashiRolls

@SashiRolls: What do you read from this? François Robere (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment by MyMoloboaccount

Unfortunately since the case has happened there has been continued escalation of borderline flaming attempts and repeated behavior described in the case like attempts to minimize Nazi atrocities towards Polish population while overemphasizing antisemitism in Poland

• Wholesale deletion of information on Nazi atrocities and racist policy of Nazis in Poland[23]
• Naming genocide of Poles "limited action" by Germans, and writing that when describing Poland in WW and writing about Polish victims of Nazi Germany "Poles should appear last"[24]
• Describing genocide of Poles in punctuation marks as Polish "genocide" [25]
• Claims by Icewhiz that stating Poland was occupied by Nazis is Stressing the occupation is redundant, and is aligned with a particular POV[26]

Icewhiz ignored question what POV does it represent to state that Poland was occupied by Nazis.

• Describing (in context of World War 2 Nazi racist atrocities) the Holocaust as mainly German(excluding Polish role), which subtly tries to impose it as German-Polish undertaking, and that racism was the doing of the church[27]

This sadly paints a picture where Nazi atrocities are being removed or denied as soon as they are concerning Poles and where Holocaust is being described as some German-Polish operation.The OR goes even further to the point where 13th century Poland has been described as racist state motivated by racial ideology rather than religious strife[28](note that NONE of the sources used by Icewhiz claim the conflict in 13th was motivated by racist ideology of thought rather than religion). --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• The first case is about editors trying to claim Original Research that Poland in 13th was engaged in racist persecution of Jews.Which is simply absurd, there was religious strife for sure, but racism wasn't the motivation for these actions and conflicts, just like Crusades were motivated by religion rather than racism.Nobody pushed for removal of sourced information about racism in 19th or 20th century, just against bizarre claims not supported by any sources.
• One editor inserting a whole pile of PRIMARY, cherry-picked or otherwise misrepresented sources in Racism in Poland [29].

Simply untrue, scholarly and expert sources have been added about Nazi atrocities in Poland against Polish population. In return FR has started denying that Nazis genocided Polish population and engaged in mass deletion of sources and infromation about Nazi racist policies in Poland such as War and Genocide: Essays in Honour of Jeremy Noakes Jeremy Noakes, Neil Gregory University of Exeter Press, 2005(that stated In 1942 Nazi racial discrimination was enshrined in Decree on Penal Law for Poles and Jews) and others[30]. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Reply to Icewhiz

Anti-Polish as a word is hardly equal to antisemitism, for example read

• Carolyn Slutsky, “March of the Living: Confronting Anti-Polish Stereotypes,” in Robert Cherry and Annamaria Orla-Bukowska (eds), Rethinking Poles and Jews:Troubled Past, Brighter Future
• or author who you were using and are fond of Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the the Present

Joanna B. Michlic Therefore I also reject the perspective that equates postwar anti-Polish stereotyping by Jews with the anti-Jewish idioms What I would indeed find toxic, is constant comparisons of Poland to Nazi Germany, inability to engage in dialogoue with numerous successive Polish editors, creating attack pages,deleting any information stating otherwise,and inability to interpret and frame intereactions and portayal of Poland in any other context besides racist antisemitism. As the English proverb states: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Volunteer Marek

Re: Francois Robere's claims and MyMoloboaccount's comments (added after comment was moved):

The first one is not even about whether 13th century persecution of Jews was racial or religious. It's about the fact that what was a European-wide phenomenon is being ascribed to 13th century Poland as if it was unique. Icewhiz and FR are actually trying to blame Poland for the anti-semitic policies of the Lateran Council. In case anyone is confused, the Lateran is in Rome, the pope was an Italian, and the council was composed primarily of Frankish and Italian bishops from the Holy Roman Empire, and Poland didn't have diddly squat to do with it. Needless to say, the sources being used (and misrepresented) do not support the edits being pushed. It's just some weird obsession here, with cramming as much negative info into articles on Poland as possible, even if that info is false and not supported by sources. It's gotten REALLY tiresome. Like two years ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And it is a complete falsehood that "editors rejected the consensus of a RM discussion". That is a dishonest and disingenuous way of describing the dispute. NOBODY tried to undo any article names or move. Instead, Icewhiz basically claimed that because the name "Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" was rejected in favor of simply "Holocaust in Poland" (which is reasonable per WP:MOS) that gave him a carte blanche to go through out Wikipedia and remove the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2 wherever he liked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz

Re #1 As already explained, the first sentence of this text is NOT in the source. And there's NOTHING in that source about "setting up ghettos". Yes, the Catholic Church in Europe in the 13th century sought to separate Christians and Jews by putting Jews in ghettos. And these attempts - instituted by the Lateran Council in Rome - applied to Poland. However, there's NOTHING in the source about "placing Polish Jews in ghettos in 1266". The Church said one thing, the nobility and the dukes did another. Indeed, another source that was brought up implies that the first ghettos in Poland appeared only in the 16th century, three hundred years later. This is a misrepresentation of sources.

Re #2 As already explained, there is NO "circumventing consensus for title". Nobody wants to change the outcome of the RM with regard to the article's title. What multiple editors are objecting to is Icewhiz (and FR) going through a significant number of articles and removing the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2. Well, that, and the misleading, disingenuous and tendentious claims that the outcome of the RM is some kind of carte blanche to remove the fact of the occupation anywhere Icewhiz sees fit. Or for that matter, Icewhiz obnoxiously referring to the fact of German occupation as just a "particular POV". The whole WP:MOS thing was cooked up by Icewhiz after the first lame excuse fell through.

Re #3 Again, there is no "POV pushing" unless one sincerely believes that the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2 is a "particular POV". This is, needless to say, an extremist, fring and historically false assertion. I'm also not clear on how someone's statements on twitter are relevant here. "German occupied Poland" is actually the standard phrase used in the literature. For example by Timothy Snyder [31] (not a "Polish nationalist" (sic)) or by the US Holocaust Museum (also not "Polish nationalists") [32] [33], Israeli academics (also not "Polish nationalists") and the Scientific American (also not "Polish nationalists") [34], press agencies such as Reuters (also not "Polish nationalists") [35], prominent historians such as Martin Gilbert (also not a "Polish nationalist") (pgs 42, 47, 62 etc etc etc) and Joshua Zimmerman [36] (also not a "Polish nationalist") and so on and so forth. Hell, even Icewhiz's favorite author Jan Grabowski, that Icewhiz has tried to spam into as many articles about Poland as possible (because Grabowski's writings are so negative about Poles in WW2) uses the term: Betrayal and Murder in German-occupied Poland. Needless to say Grabowski is also not a "Polish nationalist". Basically, one of Icewhiz's tactics is to try and label anything that doesn't fit in with his fringe and extremist POV as "Polish nationalism"... even when it's something widely accepted among historians; Polish, Israeli, American, etc. This only illustrates that the WP:AGENDA Icewhiz is pursuing here and the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusade he's been on for the past two+ years is way out of the mainstream.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but disagreements about how WP:MOS should be applied are NOT usually "actionable unless an ArbCom case is open". That's absurd. I've never seen that. This is hyperbolic attempt to deflect from the fact that Icewhiz got caught inserting false information into an article with fake sourcing [37] and I brought up the fact that THIS kind of behavior is ... usually very actionable. He's attempting to project. "I got caught doing something bad so I must quickly make up as many accusations as I can against the other party to change the topic!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz's newest - a detailed explanation with multiple sources is NOT a "tirade". This is just more of the same from Icewhiz. Likewise Icewhiz's disingenous "it's unfortunate" (oh yeah, sure) "that VM disagrees..." NO. I simply provided multiple reliable sources which illustrate just how fringe Icewhiz's views are and how WP:TENDENTIOUS it is for him to try to smear anyone who disagrees with him as a "Polish nationalist". According to Icewhiz that label apparently applies to American and Israeli historians (and Polish ones) as well as the US Holocaust Museum and the Yad Vashem institute. Wait wait wait... let me try this... Ahem. *Clears throat*...

It is unfortunate that Icewhiz disagrees with the US Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem Institute, Timothy Snyder, Joshua Zimmerman and even Jan Grabowski,

See? Phony "civility" is easy. But that doesn't change that this is a case of WP:CPUSHing fringe views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@SQL: And also please alert the ArbCom that User:François Robere filed a completely bogus SPI report against me (it was under my username but after CU found, "unsurprisingly", nothing it was moved [38]). This is pretty good example of François Robere's WP:BATTLEGROUND. The decisions in this case need to address their behavior as well, especially in light of the evidence already presented.

(as an aside, I have no idea who or what these accounts are but freaking out because some single-edit-red-linked accounts made some edits and yelling about "WARNING! SOCKMASTER ACTIVE IN THE AREA!!!!" is a bit... over the top? But while we're here, I wouldn't mind if EVERYONE who's participating (whether as party or commentator) got their butts checkuser'd (in fact that should be standard policy for ArbCom cases)). Volunteer Marek 20:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I'm not so sure that this is someone "impersonating me" - that's FR's conjecture, cooked up after it became obvious that I wasn't sock puppeting, to excuse his filing the report against me. I don't know... maybe? Also, I wasn't shouting, I was parodying the shouting of others, and I know that there's no chance whatsoever that my proposal for check usering everyone in an ArbCom case would ever be accepted.

@François Robere: - the "bogus" part is that you filed it with bogus accusations against me. Volunteer Marek 03:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding IBAN and "new" evidence

@SQL: @L235: It is my understanding that while the parties subject to the IBAN "may post responses to the PD directly on the PD talk page" they need to do so without pinging or responding directly to the other party. I presume that the IBAN also would cover attempts to introduce new material as "evidence" that has not been mentioned in either Evidence or Workshop previously, or that has not been subject of the PD. Basically, the statements should address the PDs, and not seek to initiate new disputes. Is that correct? Volunteer Marek 08:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Response to FoFs

@SQL: Remedy 3.3.6 should be a "Finding of Fact" rather than a "Proposed Remedy", since it doesn't actually propose anything, no? Volunteer Marek 06:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I would guess that because it's something the committee is "doing" (it includes an apology) and isn't really a fact necessary to support or provide background for another remedy, the drafters felt it was more appropriate as a remedy than as an FoF. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That's right. It could go in either place, really, but it seemed to make more sense in the "doing stuff" section. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess that'll work, it just seemed a bit strange as a remedy. Anyway, the statement is appreciated and I realize that this is a quite complicated case. Volunteer Marek 08:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Icewhiz

In regards to VM's comments above:

1. The content is question is on placing Polish Jews in ghettos in 1266 (applying a prior (1215) Vatican council decision in Poland) - the source is on Poland: "It is not known how many Jew had established residence in Poland in the thirteenth century. That there were enough of them (it wouldn't have taken many) in the old Polish diocese, that of Gnizeno (Gnesen), to worry the Church fathers is evident from the following clause in canonical law as imposed by the Church Council of Breslau in 1266.... VM and MyMoloboaccount are seriously arguing to exclude placing Polish Jews in separate ghettos - in Poland - from racism in Poland.
2. RM discussion on title of The Holocaust in Poland. VM circumventing consensus for title in links to that article (+violating MOS:SECTIONSTYLE(point-2) for section headers (sub-header under header containing "Poland" or article containing "Poland")): diff, diff (note edit summary: "simpler is not always better if it's less informative. RfC about naming of a particular article irrelevant"), diff, diff. This action (changing links, including see-also links, to correspond to title rejected by RM) by VM would've been actionable by itself had this ARBCOM not been open.
3. In regards to the POV-pushing involved in circumventing the RM decision (+MOS:SECTIONSTYLE) - I refer to Dr. Waitman W. Beorn (Holocaust historian at The University of Virginia) - [39] - who explains the Polish push to use clunky terms such as "German Nazi-occupied Poland" as caused by "current trends in conservative Polish nationalism. In order to highlight what right wing Poles see as unrecognized Polish suffering (3 million non-Jewish Poles were murdered by the Nazis), it is important to minimize other suffering". Beorn also refers to this as a "naming crusade", and provides ample examples of Polish nationalist discourse in this context.

Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the tirade above - "Icewhiz's tactics is to try and label..." - I was quoting Dr. Waitman W. Beorn (Holocaust historian at The University of Virginia) who wrote on this topic. It is unfortunate VM disagrees with Dr. Beorn. Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Temporary interaction ban

@AGK: - the hounding, harrassment, bullying, and name calling has been entirely one sided here. The sole place I have made comments on Volunteer Marek have been pages related to this case page - and these have been politely framed. I want to point out to ARBCOM that VM's issues extend well past Polish Jews (whom VM stated, here in ARBCOM, should not be labelled by Wikipedia as Polish in Wikipedia's lead) - but also to Islamophobia in Poland and LGBT-free zone where his disruption and arguing against mainstream high quality sources is clearly WP:NOTTHERE (beyond "just" hounding and bullying). That ARBCOM sees fit to consider sanctioning the victim of a relentless hounding campaign (which continued during these proceedidngs) speaks volumes. That diff from 15 August - which included the dergatory and racial based "anti-Polish":

For the advocates of the national-Catholic outlook the concept of anti-Polonism is much clearer than that of antisemitism. It has been present in the Polish public discourse since the late 1960s. It has even earned a definition: “external or internal actions aimed at the destruction of the Polish state and nation, hostility towards Poland and Poles, use of lies and insinuations calculated to blacken the image of the nation”. In the popular usage the anti-Polonism is limited almost exclusively to the alleged ‘anti-Polish machinations’ on the part of Jews.

[40] To further frame the context - "anti-Polish" was the label applied to Polish Jews in 1968 as the Polish government expelled almost every remaining Jew in Poland (some 100,000):

"Zionists to Zion," people yelled at party conventions, the aim being to send the country's Jews — regarded as anti-Polish — to Israel.

[41] That this threatening language that does not result in an immediate site ban speaks volumes to the health of this community in responding to highly toxic behavior.Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Response to inaccuracies in FoF

"Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric":

1. [42] - Polophile is used by mainstream sources - book, macleans - to refer to pro-Polish writers. it is not "ethnically derogatory" - it is the same as Francophile or Anglophile (which I suggest someone put up for AfD or massively refactor as "ethnically derogatory" should ARBCOM rule "Polophile" is "ethnically derogatory")!
2. [43] - Polocaust is not an "ethnically derogatory comment". It is used by the Polish government - [44], and is used in mainstream sources - e.g. London Review of Books - [45]. Polocaust is a contraction of "Polish Holocaust" - a notion advanced by some in Poland.
3. [46] - Multiple reliable sources have seen to Polish Holocaust law as relevant to Polish media. My comparison to North Korea was unneeded hyperbole.
4. [47] - I apologize for this comment in 2017, and my opinion of Polish Wikipedia has changed 180 degrees and is quite positive after I learned more. However the Polish Holocaust law is applicable to Polish Wikipedia editors (as it does not fall under an exception, law at the the applied worldwide).

"BLP violations" -

1. [48] - mostly falls under WP:ABOUTSELF (3 out of 4 sources are copies of an op-ed by the subject (in various not so mainstream outlets). The fourth, which shouldn't have been used, has extensive quotations of the op-ed and commentary - which is inappropriate given the nature of the source. The op-ed itself). I did use one inappropriate source.I did not revert this content after a challenge, and after a different editor reverted this back in + issues on one of the sources were raised for the first time at AE - I corrected the passage'. I also took criticism to heart and ceased using op-eds by BLP subjects (in particular when published in such fora) for BLP pages following the criticism in mid-2018.
2. [49] - Shouldn't have placed the category, and did not contest its removal. However the majority of coverage on Kurek in reliable sources in English is in the context of Holocaust distortion in her writing and speeches - it is the primary issue she has coverage for, and wouldn't pass GNG without it.
3. [50] - Norman Davies tenure at Standford was rejected in conjunction with his writing on Jewish-Polish issues. This is not speculation - Davies said so himself (filing a protracted lawsuit on this basis), and this has had major coverage. See New York Times - SCHOLAR SAYS HIS VIEWS ON JEWS COST HIM A POST AT STANFORD, or this book. I should've placed one of these sources next to my assertion - however this is easily sourced.
4. [51] - for starters Bronisław Wildstein has filled many roles (e.g. dissident, journalist), but he is not a scholar. Wildstein is primarily known for the Wildstein list controversy - the publication of over a hundred thousand names connected by archives to the communists on the internet. The uproar, at the time, led to Wildstein being fired from Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) - see Guardian in English. At least in English the list controversy is his primary claim to notability. Wildstein's words on tokfm radio were being discussed for inclusion on a BLP article - Jan Grabowski (historian) - a Canadian scholar, who is covered by mainstream media and academia.

"Holocaust denial" - My opening preamble was on the state of content on Wikipedia, in relation to currents outside of Wikipedia on Holocaust distortion/denial. It was not addressed at any particular editor. I stand behind my assertion that Holocaust distortion content is present - and is even pervasive on Wikipedia. In addition to distortions listed in the case (e.g. pogroms carried out by Poles described as carried out by German, "Jewish Welcoming banner", False information in Chełmno extermination camp - described as "targeted at removal of Jews and Poles from all nearby towns and villages" [52], covering up grave digging in Belzec extermination camp) - during this long case I found a conspiracy theory on an extra death camp (allegedly for ethnic Poles) present in main space for some 15 years (on 6 different articles - including top-tier articles such as Extermination Camp or German camps in occupied Poland during World War II. See User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory - and as I sent to the ARBCOM mailing list - this also involved Poeticbent inserting information not supported by the citation he used (in response to a citation-needed challenge), nor by any mainstream source in at least one article - diff). Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation should be deeply concerned at this platform being used for widespread and persistent Holocaust distortion.

The evidence in [53] - is wide ranging - and beyond an error. In Stawiski Poeticbent actively prevented removal more than three times of content not supported by citations - I refer to AE on this content and to this piece by Dr. Whitcup who describes multiple attempts to correct the entry (the editor doing the reverting, as evident in article history, was Poeticbent).

Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Struck - as not the place to rerun evidence.Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Points in evidence that were omitted

Post in accordance with note. ARBCOM has overlooked the following points in evidence in the sections below.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek POV/FRINGE, the following points on BLP vs. Volunteer Marek are in evidence and not in the PD:

1. BLP talk attack - [54], [55] - against scholar who has written extensively on the topic. profile of scholar. Based in Poland, she also writes in English, and has been interviewed as an expert (not as an author of a "rant" or as "photographer") in English media - e.g. NE Public Radio or Tablet in 2018-2019.
2. BLP talk - [56], [57] - saying BLP author of peer reviewed journal article is "absurd" and "utilizes ridiculous and laughable conspiracy theories". (the information itself on the The Institute of World Politics is corroborated by several other 3rd party sources - as well as IWP itself (all over their website. Their main page - [58] - features a CIA information session on 10 September if anyone is interested)
3. BLP - [59] - inserting the Polish League Against Defamation as a source to a BLP. This is a right-wing nationalist organization - [60][61] - that certainly does not meet WP:BLPSOURCES.
4. BLP - [62] - highly inappropriate self-published source with serious accusations. Unlike the Chodakiewicz oped (to be precise - 3 copies of the ABOUTSELF oped + the mistake of using an additional source which covered the oped - all cited together - and inserted once (and not reverted after challenge)) - this is restoration of material (after a very clear challenge on BLP grounds) - authored by someone else, self-published (self-evident by the passage itself which states it was rejected by History and placed on a website). Volunteer Marek's action is also recent - 26 May 2019 - and it took a couple of reverts + a discussion to get him to back down.

Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Fabrication of content

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: Verification and Volunteer Marek's actions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes are in evidence and not in the PD:

1. [63] - Inserting into an article that "both Poles and Jews were classified as subhuman and targeted for extermination" - which is at the the extremes of the "Polish Holocaust" notion (which is a spectrum - this is at the right most edges of it). The cited source - a municipal website - does not contain this falsehood. Pure fabrication by Volunteer Marek And MyMoloboaccount. Note content was challenged - diff - on WP:V grounds specifically noting that "the outrageous comparing of Poles and Jews in the last sentence ist terrible".
2. Vounteer Marek fabricating content not in source - [64] (the plan wasn't accepted, and the non-existent plan certainly wasn't a motivation for immigration - pure fake and not in source), while removing mass-murder and anti-Jewish pogroms as the widely sourced motivation for Jewish post-war flight. Source is in English - should be easy to check.
3. Volunteer Marek [65][66] - fabricating that the Jews of Radziłów sent "Polish families to exile" - as a prelude to their mass murder in a pogrom carried out by Poles whose climax was the burning alive of a large group of Jews in a barn. The source, as indicated by VM himself, is on a different place entirely. And again - in English (both the source and the underlying citation) - should be easy to verify - right here on page 63 (statement is without a location, and describes why "nationalistic elements among the majority peoples" (throughout Western USSR) labelled the Soviet adminstration as a "Jewish regime").

. Radziłów is a pretty well known event.

1. [67] - not in citation. personal attack on challenge.
2. [68] - fabrication - the source does not say this practice is "very limited" (the source is in Polish - however other sources using this source are in English. The sentence is also absurd by itself - an item held by 19% of Poles (per survey) is not "very limited")
3. [69] - inserting content that does not appear in cited source. And ... admitting he didn't actually check the Kopciowski source, which does not contain the information sourced to it. One of the two Kopciowski refs are in English - I can send it via mail. Kopciowski doesn't contain "thousands" - it is a very local study. (it is also WP:CHERRYPICKED to the extreme - having read the entire 29 page Anti-Jewish Incidents in the Lublin Region in the Early Years after World War II - the article is basically a description of dozens of different anti-Jewish incidents in Lublin post-war).
4. [70] - misrepresentation + WP:CHERRYPICKING to the extreme of a reputable young scholar - twisting his writing (and attributing in Wiki voice!). You don't need to read the Polish - Krzyzanowski - cites his own work in a later, 2018, English journal paper - coming to quite different conclusions than what Wikipedia attributed to him.

Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

far-right POV

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek POV/FRINGE the following are in evidence and not in the PD:

1. [71] [72] - removing "Polish" from Polish Jews. In ARBCOM - [73] - openly advocating Wikipedia shouldn't refer to Polish Jews as Polish. Counter to MOS:ETHNICITY.
2. [74] - VM inserting content to Wikipedia - referring to a practicing Catholic as Jewish - in WikiVoice, without even mentioning his conversion.
3. Not recognizing the Polish government in 1945-1989 (which happened to be Communist) - [75], [76]. Commie marking (multiple times in one sentence) - high ranking communist soldier - [77]
4. Referring to sources on Polish antisemitism as "Pole bashing" - [78] or "COATRACK ... disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV" - [79].
5. Also - this RSN discussion (in evidence) - where we have a small group of editors genuinely arguing for the use of this dubious source - which should raise very strong alarm bells at ARBCOM.

Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by TonyBallioni

More of a procedural thing than anything, AGK, but I think Worm That Turned mentioned on the Fram case that he was opposed to time limited bans. He was speaking of site bans there, but I think the same logic applies to topic bans. Given how deeply seated these topics are emotionally for people, I personally doubt in a year they will suddenly not feel the same way and act the same way. It might make more sense to change it to "They may appeal after a year" or something like that, so that there has to be a discussion before the ban lapses.

Anyway, that assumes either passes, but worth raising as there has been a trend both at AN, AE, and to some extent ArbCom itself away from limited sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Levivich

• FOF 4 and FOF 5 have combined statements about both IW and VM. They should be split; arbs shouldn't forced to choose between supporting both or neither.
• FOF 4 "incivility and inflammatory rhetoric" -
  • It is not an "unnecessary inflammatory comment" to compare media suppression in one country (here, Poland) with media suppression in very-repressive countries (North Korea, Iran). How are we supposed to discuss sources if we can't discuss press freedoms? Nobody makes this case when we're talking about, for example, Wikipedia being shut off in Turkey, or restricted in China, or Venezuela, where comparisons to NK and Iran are made all the time. Why is it "inflammatory" and "unnecessary" when it's Poland? Because it's a European country, it can't be repressive like North Korea?
  • IW is right that "Polocaust" is not derogatory. The Polish Deputy Culture Minister called for creating a "Polokaust Museum". [80] Same with "polophile", which is no different than sinophile, anglophile, francophile, etc. Here it is in a journal: [81]
• FOF 5 "assuming bad faith" – All of the examples from these case pages should be removed, for both parties. This will have a chilling effect on the bringing of evidence.
• FOF 9 "insinuations of holocaust denial"
  • Actually, IW wrote "Holocaust denial/distortion". "Holocaust denial" doesn't just mean denying that the Holocaust ever happened. Holocaust revisionism, and Holocaust minimization, are also forms of Holocaust denial. So what do you call it when an editor changes the order of victims in an article from "Jews, Roma, Africans, Poles" to "Poles, Jews, Roma, Africans"? That's Holocaust denial.
  • If we are going to have FOFs about what people wrote on the case request page, then why aren't any of these statements by VM in the FOFs?
    • ...to push his fucked up POV of "Poles are a bunch of anti semites" which has been the POV he's been engaged in pushing for the past two years... Icewhiz's POV however goes far beyond that and displays some weird obsession with shitting on Poland
    • ...1) Fuck. You. and 2) have the fucking guts to say it outright rather than insinuating it like a sleazy weasel...horribly and utterly sleazy, dishonest and scummy... this fucking asshole needs to be banned. Now.
    • ...stop lying about me you fucking sleazeball.
• FOF 10 "BLP violations"
  • Ewa Kurek once wrote that Jews "had fun in the ghettos". It is not a BLP violation to add her to Category:Holocaust deniers. I mean, if you don't think that's Holocaust denial, I don't know what to tell you. At most, you might say it's a bona-fide content dispute. But it's definitely not a BLP violation to take one side of that content dispute. Making "negative edits to BLPs" is not a violation of our policies, of course, so long as it's well sourced. We have an entire section in that article discussing other scholars discussing Ewa Kurek's Holocaust denials and revisionism.
  • "posting negative claims or speculations about living scholars" – how do we do our jobs as editors if we can't discuss the reputability of sources? There are no "speculations" in the diffs provided. It's a discussion of a source, referencing other sources discussing that source. With links and diffs.
• So many diffs are from 2018 and so few are from, like, the last few months. Why no mention of these incidents that happened during the case here, here and here? A topic ban should be based on current, ongoing disruption, not stuff from a year or two ago.
• Remedy 2: The IBAN should be one way VM vs. IW. VM hounds IW; there's no evidence of the reverse. VM is uncivil towards IW, there's no evidence of the reverse (and IW's claims that VM isn't following NPOV are not PAs). VM acts like it's his job to police IW's contribs (see links in previous bullet).
• Remedy 3 and 4, I think are both unnecessary and will be ineffective (as there are many other editors who will continue in IW and VM's places). Instead, I think it should be replaced with strong and specifically-worded admonitions–the kind that actually advise the parties specifically on how to do better in the future–combined with structural remedies such as Remedy 5. – Levivich 22:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

---

@MJL: You're right that I'm basically arguing semantics with denial v. distortion. "Polocaust", though, really isn't an inflammatory term IMO; it's the term used by the Polish government itself, and seems to be used by others to describe the concept:

• The Wall Street Journal: "Poland’s government...argues that the murder of Poles—about 3 million non-Jewish Poles died during the war—constitutes a Polocaust, a term used by its Ministry of Culture, which is seeking to build a museum educating foreigners about the suffering of Poles during the war."
• The "liberal" Gazeta Wyborcza [82] (Gtrans): "Professor Wojciech Burszta: Polocaust reminds that Poles are not worse than Jews". pl:Wojciech Burszta is a cultural anthropology professor at SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, "one of the largest private universities in Poland".
• Polish blog pl:Salon24.pl ran an opinion piece (Gtrans): "Antipolonism and Polocaust... Since the crime against European Jews is the Holocaust, the crime against 6 million Polish citizens (including 3 million ethnic Poles) committed by Nazi Germany and the communist USSR is Polocaust. The author of the concept of Polocaust is Marek Kochan. It is worth using this term and constantly repeating what it means. In the era of online media, it may be easier to spread the term than anyone thinks. And the memory of the Polocaust is a tribute to millions of murdered or exterminated compatriots... Antipolonism and Polocaust are real phenomena. It's time to name them. Words are a very strong tool in this case defending the history of the country and the memory of murdered people." (Marek Kochan wrote a piece in Rzeczpospolita advocating for a Polocaust Museum.)
• pl:Pikio.pl [83] (Gtrans): "What is Polokaust? ... Who is Marek Kochan?"

In that diff, IW is arguing that an author was not reliable because he's "advancing polocaust, which is quite fringy". I don't see how that's inflammatory when "Polocaust" is what it's called by the government, professors, the media, etc., and the author in question did write a book called "Poland's Holocaust" [84]. Whether Polocaust is or isn't "fringy", and whether this author is or isn't an RS, I don't know, but I don't think it's inflammatory to use the term Polocaust or suggest that it may be fringe (there's at least some support out there for that, but I haven't extensively researched the issue myself). – Levivich 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

---

@MJL: I'll note IW wrote above that he shouldn't have added Ewa Kurek to that category and didn't contest it, but there's at least enough Israeli media sources IMO to call it a good-faith content issue and not a BLP violation:

• Haaretz ("the longest running newspaper currently in print in Israel"): "The Jedwabne petition, which is being circulated by Ewa Kurek, a far-right historian from Lublin, received coverage in Polish media amid other articles about revisionist tendencies on Jedwabne, including at the Institute of National Remembrance" [85]
• Arutz Sheva ("an Israeli media network identifying with Religious Zionism"): "...the known Polish vocal anti-Semite Ewa Kurek who actively promotes the concept that ghettos during the war ‘were set up by Jews on Polish territories as a blue-print for the future Jewish state structures’." [86]
• Tablet (magazine) [87]:
  • "What is particularly alarming," Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal Center and a former chair of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial said of Kurek’s U.S. speeches, "is the fact that professional anti-Semites and Holocaust distorters are finding audiences and mining U.S. communities for support."
  • Silberklang had a similarly unsparing verdict on Kurek’s work. "She doesn’t deny that Nazi Germany wanted to kill the Jews and that Jews were killed. She’s not a Holocaust denier in that sense," he said. "But she distorts things so radically and so egregiously that she’s basically in the realm of Holocaust denial, or at least extreme distortion."
  • "She is maybe the only legitimate Holocaust scholar to have become an alleged Holocaust revisionist or distorter during a later phase of her career."

Haaretz calls her a "revisionist" and we don't have a Category:Holocaust revisionists, and I'm probably more of a hardliner that "revisionism is denial' perhaps than IW, so I can see why he wouldn't contest it, but not a bad-faith BLP violation. Revisionism v. denial is "shades of gray". – Levivich 03:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by SashiRolls

I have watched this case from afar and my feeling about it has changed significantly over time, particularly after looking more carefully into a couple of the articles under contention and successfully editing a couple of those pages. Two of the proposed findings of fact are problematic. As both Icewhiz and Levivich have said, I think it is stretching language-policing to the limit to characterize the words "Polocaust" and "polophile" as insulting, proscribed speech. Finding of Fact #4 should be split into two separate findings as Levivich suggests. Similarly, the citations Lev provides of VM showing no self-restraint should definitely be added to the FoF regarding VM's "inflammatory rhetoric". My initial sympathy for VM in this case was related to off-wiki events with which I have no reason to believe IW was connected (Streisand Effect of VM vociferating about being called a holocaust denier.)

I also concur with Levivich concerning the presentation of events since closure of the evidence phase (FoF #14). Not only was the edit warring report glossed over (though El C specifically drew ArbCom's attention to it, leading to the temporary injunctions on this very page!) , but the link to Icewhiz' naked block record (without mention of their AE appeal) is very misleading. bradv chose to block IW for a marginal offense, while looking the other way as VM pushed "Ethnic Poles" back to the top of the "Racism in Poland" entry (which he'd fought with IW about as recently as 11 Aug).

I can understand that IW has provoked reaction with their editing. My experience, for example, with the New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) page is a good example. The point about Polish nationalism is/was driven home with multiple repetitions and unnecessarily unpleasant / leading formulations. However, I think it is worth mentioning that I did not encounter any of the ownership behavior so common in AP2 when I tried to tone down the language. (In fact, I don't believe that I was reverted on either of the pages I edited which IW had principally authored.)

In summary, I don't want to get involved in this debate any more than to say that FoF #4 and FoF #14 should be modified: the first should be split into two separate findings and the latter should be completed to include a fuller picture of the post-workshop goings on. It is my opinion that there is some fault on both sides but that something needs to be done about an editor who regularly vents their spleen without any filter whatsoever. Again, I believe VM's comments need to be highlighted here so that it is clear what ArbCom will be condoning if they do not sanction this sort of speech:

Volunteer Marek being splenetic: A]...to push his fucked up POV of "Poles are a bunch of anti semites" which has been the POV he's been engaged in pushing for the past two years... Icewhiz's POV however goes far beyond that and displays some weird obsession with shitting on Poland B]... 1) Fuck. You. and 2) have the fucking guts to say it outright rather than insinuating it like a sleazy weasel...horribly and utterly sleazy, dishonest and scummy... this fucking asshole needs to be banned. Now. C]...stop lying about me you fucking sleazeball.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Piotrus

As I said before, i-bans and t-bans are not ideal, but frankly, I am not sure what would be better :( Few general comments:

• about the scope of topic ban, it is IMHO a bit unclear if it extends to topics like Institute of National Remembrance or racism in Poland, just to mention two relatively recent articles the parties had some disagreements.
• while I think it is correct to remove Poeticbent as a party, I still think it is a missed opportunity to invite him back (if with some words of caution/warning). In addition to handing out punishments, arbcom should also hand incentives for good behavior (since there is no other body on Wikipedia that can do so). Also, semi-related, I've noticed how some editors at recent AE appeal by IW have commented about 3-day block without a warning being too harsh; a fair point - yet I wonder where were those editors, or voices, when Poeticbent received a 6-month topic ban out of the blue for a single comment of debatable incivility? For him, it was an effectively 6-month ban. If one is going to argue about 3 days ban being too harsh, perhaps some perspective is needed... Again, I am only bringing this up as I think ArbCom has the power to correct this particular wrong and at least try, in addition to removing two active editors from this topic area, to bring another one back. In the end, we have to also consider who's going to be left to create content, after the dust settles - because if we create nuclear desert with everyone interested in this effectively blocked or scared off, is Wikipedia really going to be better of? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not really arbcom's institutional role to "invite people back" (and I doubt it would work on anyone, either). It's always better if someone who knew and worked with the departed editor well does the reaching out. Opabinia regalis (talk)

Comment by MyMoloboaccount

Couple of loose notes and observations.

• Some topics on World War and other history events are very niche and we won't find them covered widely in English based publications.For example the atrocities of Wehrmacht in 1939 Poland or events in Eastern Poland under Soviet Occupation lack sufficient work cover in English.We should make a point that while preferred, non-English sources shouldn't be excluded.
• I note that continued battleground behavior and refusal to accept any wrongdoing by Icewhiz above is unfortunately troubling and doesn't bode well for future behavior. Icewhiz was already prohibited from editing these topics before-it didn't help and he returned with tendentious editing into this area. As mentioned in this case, there is an obsession here about denial of Nazi atrocities against ethnic Poles(such as Poles being subject to Nazi genocide(as it was defined by Nuremberg Trial proceedings) and being classified as subhumans), generalizing Poles as a whole as antisemites, and attempts to compare Poland to Nazi Germany. I am afraid that I see no effort by Icewhiz to acknowledge that this is an issue he needs to work on, or that he has any bias at all regading these subjects.If Icewhiz is convinced that he is right and was just wrongly punished, we will see again in one year the same problems with edits trying to remove information about Nazi atrocities against Poles, attempts to show Poland as Nazi Germany etc...As such it will be just postponing further cases and calls for admin intervention.

I confess that I don't know at the current moment how to remedy this, all I can say is that I don't believe this will resolve the issue in the long term. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)