François Robere (talk | contribs) |
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 540: | Line 540: | ||
===Rebuttal of Icewhiz=== |
===Rebuttal of Icewhiz=== |
||
I will answer in more detail later, but I would like to note that essentially all of Icewhiz's diffs against me involve minor, fairly uncontroversial edits which then Icewhiz tries to pretend constitute some horrible crime, and he does this by trying to falsely associate me and smear me by bringing up irrelevant notions or sources which I never endorsed or used. In particular he writes: ''"The NSZ is known as antisemitic,[1][2] killing many Jews"''. Yes it is, and I've never said anything otherwise. In fact I've removed far-right bullshit which tried to whitewash the organization [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Armed_Forces&diff=prev&oldid=264713677 myself]. The diff Icewhiz presents has NOTHING TO DO with whether NSZ was antisemitic etc. Icewhiz is trying to falsely insinuate (in a pretty vicious smear) that I disagree with the notion that NSZ was antisemitic. Nonsense. |
*I will answer in more detail later, but I would like to note that essentially all of Icewhiz's diffs against me involve minor, fairly uncontroversial edits which then Icewhiz tries to pretend constitute some horrible crime, and he does this by trying to falsely associate me and smear me by bringing up irrelevant notions or sources which I never endorsed or used. In particular he writes: ''"The NSZ is known as antisemitic,[1][2] killing many Jews"''. Yes it is, and I've never said anything otherwise. In fact I've removed far-right bullshit which tried to whitewash the organization [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Armed_Forces&diff=prev&oldid=264713677 myself]. The diff Icewhiz presents has NOTHING TO DO with whether NSZ was antisemitic etc. Icewhiz is trying to falsely insinuate (in a pretty vicious smear) that I disagree with the notion that NSZ was antisemitic. Nonsense. |
||
Likewise he keeps bringing up "far-right Nasz Dziennik" as if I had used this publication as I source. I never have and simply wouldn't. This is also just a false insinuation. |
Likewise he keeps bringing up "far-right Nasz Dziennik" as if I had used this publication as I source. I never have and simply wouldn't. This is also just a false insinuation. |
||
Line 546: | Line 546: | ||
Both of these illustrate Icewhiz's manipulative approach to editing and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior, which involves misrepresenting other users (as well as sources but that's a separate issue) and exemplify the underlying problems that his presence in the topic area have caused. Nobody wants to have a discussion with someone who's busy making false horrible attacks against you.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 16:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC) |
Both of these illustrate Icewhiz's manipulative approach to editing and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior, which involves misrepresenting other users (as well as sources but that's a separate issue) and exemplify the underlying problems that his presence in the topic area have caused. Nobody wants to have a discussion with someone who's busy making false horrible attacks against you.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 16:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
Here is another one. Icewhiz says: {{tq|[19] - "per sources, "enormous", "most" etc. ..." - claiming "most Poles" (more than 12 million) were involved in Holocaust rescue is in WP:FRINGE turf. Mainstream sources see rescuers as a minority.[8] "Most" rather impossible to source outside of Nasz Dziennik,[9] see also Rydzyk.[10][11][12]}}. This is the diff of my edit Icewhiz is complaining about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust&diff=884169570&oldid=884066070] |
*Here is another one. Icewhiz says: {{tq|[19] - "per sources, "enormous", "most" etc. ..." - claiming "most Poles" (more than 12 million) were involved in Holocaust rescue is in WP:FRINGE turf. Mainstream sources see rescuers as a minority.[8] "Most" rather impossible to source outside of Nasz Dziennik,[9] see also Rydzyk.[10][11][12]}}. This is the diff of my edit Icewhiz is complaining about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust&diff=884169570&oldid=884066070] |
||
Here is reality: |
Here is reality: |
||
Line 557: | Line 557: | ||
This is [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] at best, and a straight up deceitful misrepresentation of another person's edits by Icewhiz.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 20:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
This is [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] at best, and a straight up deceitful misrepresentation of another person's edits by Icewhiz.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 20:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
*Another one. Icewhiz says: ''"Introduced by MyMoloboaccount in 2012. 2017 challenge on basis of "There is no evidenc for the passage, the outrageous comparing of Poles and Jews in the last sentence ist terrible", VM reverts in 2019."'' - Ummmm, my revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barczewo&diff=885142030&oldid=885139108] was of a sockpuppet of indef banned user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Kaiser+von+Europa&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end=], so first, it's legitimate on the basis of [[WP:BANREVERT]] alone. Kaiser Von Europa was banned for spreading neo-Nazi propaganda and making threats, doxxing, and extensive sock puppetry by [[User:Salvio_giuliano]]. He's also banned from other Wikis (German, Dutch too I believe?) I have no idea why Icewhiz is complaining that I reverted edits by a neo-Nazi sockpuppet here. It seems, the neo-Nazi sock puppet was anti-Polish. It kind of looks like the sock saw the general tone of Icewhiz's edits and tried to piggy back on them. That's... kind of Icewhiz's problem, not mine. |
|||
My revert undid a whole bunch of POV changes made by the sock account, not just one particular sentence that Icewhiz objects to. As far as that one particular sentence goes, it's a simple content dispute and when Icewhiz raised it on talk, [[User:Piotrus]] remove the part Icewhiz objected to. So.... why is this "evidence"? All it shows is that when Icewhiz does make an attempt at non-confrontational communication on talk, disputes get resolved. Again, I'm puzzled why is he even bringing this up here. It's just silly.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
===Rebuttal of Francois Robere=== |
===Rebuttal of Francois Robere=== |
Revision as of 00:24, 13 June 2019
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.
Submitting evidence
- Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
- You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
- Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.
Word and diff limits
- The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
- If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
- Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.
Supporting assertions with evidence
- Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
- Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.
Rebuttals
- The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
- Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.
Expected standards of behavior
- You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
- Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
- Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
- Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
- Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
- Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Evidence presented by Icewhiz
Still work in progress - this is the straightforward stuff, expect to do more on Tuesday/Wednesday. Can e-mail paywalled sources to ARBCOM if needed.
EEML
Volunteer Marek, Piotrus, Poeticbent and others were members of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list
Piotrus: E-mail solicitations
In 2018:
- E-960: [1], [2], semi-veiled PA in Polish.
- GizzyCatBella: [3], affirmative.
Piotrus: tag-teaming
Following 26 Feb VM's TBAN (rescinded 4 March) - Piotrus jumped into: 03:52 27 Feb (VM 26 Feb) (never edited by Piotrus), and 03:50, 27 February 2019 (VM 26 Feb) (edited once before in 2007).
Pitorus 04:20 15 April, VM 04:40 15 April. Note also: "sources are clearly wrong" (For Newsweek, Haaretz, etc. describing NYC event) and closure comment 24May
Volunteer Marek PAs
"bigotry": [4] (Such a nice thank you note for removing a fictional queen from an article VM last edited in 2009 - so either not on their watchlist or they did not object to the additions of fake material)
"racial criteria": [5]
"extremism/extremist":[8][9][10]
"dishonest":[11]
Volunteer Marek ASPERSIONS
VM WP:ASPERSIONS: [12][13][14], [15] (VM's prior edit: 2016)
Volunteer Marek Hounding
I requested VM stop following me on December 2018 and April 2019. In 15-30 May he followed me to ~38 articles,[16] Partial list of new/never-edited:
Volunteer Marek / Jews
[17] - "No idea what a "former Jews" means" - list contains a baptized Catholic. The notion that Jewishness is immutable has troubling antecedents.
[18],[19] - stating baptized Catholic was Jewish in lede. "clarify it": which includes Category:Polish Jews and "Jewish background", but no mention of his Catholic faith. See Talk:Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga#Jew?.
VM's at ARBCOM - doubling-down on: "...(this in the case of people who were both Polish and Jewish). I am saying, leave both out...."
. Counter to WP:MOSETHNICITY, offensive, and prejudicial.
[20] - removing "Polish" from colonel in Polish MBP that happened to have Jewish roots. [21] - treating "Polish" as ethnicity, not nationality (contrast Dutch (Uri Rosenthal), French (Robert Badinter)).
[22] - restoring reverted sock - "was a Polish communist official of Jewish background"
in lede. (also clear SYNTH, POV, a V issues - "Romkowski himself taught Różański everything about torture"
not in source.[1] Deadlinks sources.[2][3] See VM's pace here: 06:59,07:00.)
[23] - Poorly sourced assertion (photo does not support this), treating Jewish members of Soviet units as a distinct entity. Topic is a "code-word" in far-right Nasz Dziennik.[4]
Volunteer Marek: POV/FRINGE
[24] - edit-summary: "per sources, "enormous", "most" etc. ..."
- claiming "most Poles" (more than 12 million) were involved in Holocaust rescue is in WP:FRINGE turf. Mainstream sources see rescuers as a minority.[5] "Most" rather impossible to source outside of Nasz Dziennik,[6] see also Rydzyk.[7][8][9]
[25] - "... simply accurate, especially since at this early point there was still a rival government"
: including 1968 (see Polish government-in-exile#Postwar history). See also "radical negation".[10]
[26] - "It's a COATRACK for the whole disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV into this article"
. Source does tie,[11] Viewing content as a "disgusting and racist ... POV" is incompatible with academic sources covering the topic past[12][13][14] and present[15][16][17]
[27] - "remove some gratuitous and off topic Pole bashing"
.
Volunteer Marek: BLPSOURCES/BLPPRIMARY
- [28]: removing peer-reviewed sources,[18][19] inserting WP:PRIMARY stmt of nationalist organization.[20][21][22]
- [29][30] - restoring WP:BLPSPS (allegedly rejected for publication, full of WP:REDFLAG material). subsequently removed. See: talk here&here.
Xx236 PAs
MyMoloboaccount / Volunteer Marek / Piotrus: Barczewo
Introduced by MyMoloboaccount in 2012. 2017 challenge on basis of "There is no evidenc for the passage, the outrageous comparing of Poles and Jews in the last sentence ist terrible", VM reverts in 2019. cited source - municipality website does not support "eventually both Poles and Jews were classified as subhuman and targeted for extermination"
which is generally not inline with mainstream scholarship, and probably outside even "Polocaust".[23] Piotrus reverts, again. Removed following Talk:Barczewo#Dubious text.
Loosmark / Poeticbent
Loosmark was banned on 29 Nov 2010 at AN (for socking/edit-warring, not content). Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark/Archive, Poeticbent was confirmedlikely to Loosmark (and confirmed to other socks) on 14 September 2011. Poeticbent was unblocked on 1 March 2012.
Poeticbent: "Jewish welcoming"
commons, wiki1, wiki2. The citation doesn't even mention the sign.[24] Polish/English mismatch on commons. Contradicted by sign's text, image composition, and source. fixedCommons,wiki1,wiki2
Poeticbent/GizzyCatBella: Stawiski
Introduced by sock. Almost entirely unsupported by cited sources (easy to verify: see sole mention in main source Rossino[25]). Contradicted by other sources.[26][27] PB defended material in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2015. See reporting.[28] fixed noting misrepresentation,+more. GizzyCatBella "Restored to sourced and stable version", again. See Talk:Stawiski#Recent edits, GizzyCatBella TBANed at AE. Note VM's comment: "there's nothing wrong with GCB restoring a previous stable version."
[34] - for a WP:V removal marked as such. VM+1
Poeticbent/Volunteer Marek: Radziłów
Poeticbent1,Poeticbent2,Poeticbent3,sock involved. The misrepresentation here is similar to Stawiski but coupled with misrepresentation of Jedwabne pogrom. VM aware of issues with Levin quote per 24 June in Stawiski AE. VM "Restore Dov Levin", asserts this is "not a misrepresentation" while acknowledging these were "Lithuanian peasants". See Talk:Radziłów#Misrepresentation removed - Levin, which lead to a self-revert. In fact - not a direct quote ("local Poles", not "Polish families"), cherrypicked, out of context, and different (unknown) location.[29]
Poeticbent: Chełmno
Poeticent The early killing process carried out by the SS from December 8, 1941, until mid January 1942, was targeted at removal of Jews and Poles from all nearby towns
- "and Poles from all nearby towns" not supported by citation,[30] nor other sources.[31] fixed.
Poeticbent: Belzec
postwar gravedigging added in 2006, with extlink as source, wartime gravedigging added in 2009 sourced to Arad. remained until Poeticbent - 2013 postwar changeup, 2014 wartime changeup, 2015 removal wartime, 2015 removal postwar, enter students. Subsequent removals by VM([35],[36],[37]) and PB([38]) possibly justifiable as copyvios. Beyond removal of clearly sourced and relevant material, this misrepresented citation:[32][33]
- The students cleaned the site in the 90s, not the 50s.
"Beginning in the second half of the 1950s the pursuit by Germany itself of the German perpetrators drew the first serious attention to the site"
- is contradicted by the source stating an official communist investigation in 1945, handed over to the Germans in 1959. Source also covers gravedigging publicity and investigations through the 50s.
See Talk:Belzec extermination camp#June 2019 edits.
Tatzref/Volunteer Marek/Piotrus restitution
Tatzref, AE here (without prejudice to future action). 1557 bytes of citations are copied from Mark Paul document. While the text follows Paul, it does not follow the citations it uses. Namely Kopciowski doesn't support thousands, and the cited chapters in Klucze i kasa (Polish)[34] by Skibińska and Krzyżanowski read quite differently. Skibińska[35] and Krzyżanowski,[36] describe their work in English quite differently.
Piotrus reverted - but admitted he didn't check the sources.
VM reverted - admitted no access to Kopciowski. here VM - "I did indeed verify the source... That source itself used another source ... I didn't have access to ... underlying sources"
- seems to be admitting he "verified" this vs. Paul who is a WP:QS WP:SPS.(Rfc)
Tatzref/Volunteer Marek/Piotrus/MVBW Krzyzanowski
First inserted by Tatzref. I'll point out two problems: "Based on no research, Michael Meng speculates"
- clear BLP vio. And " Based on research into court records, Lukasz Krzyzanowski concludes that "a relatively large number of properties" were returned."
. No reasonable reading of page 605 of Klucze i kasa leads to this.[37] A single sentence was cherry picked, out of context, and important qualifications were removed (two specific cities, "possession, not ownership" (these were initial court orders), qualification (on the basis of court records, can) + previous sentence ("impossible to determine")). Krzyzanowski's own summary of his work in English differs.[38] See talk page on Krzyżanowski - and lack of any meaningful response.
Re-introduced by: MVBW, Piotrus, VM (17 edits - reduces faithful summary to old sentence), VM again, again, again (without name at least). Krzyzanowski is a young scholar,[39] such a misrepresentation (named in our text) can have career ramifications.
See also discussions on use of a book self-published by a historian/far-right activist profiled by the SPLC in this segment:TP, RSN, RSN RfC.
Poeticbent/Volunteer Marek/My Very Best Wishes: "Polish Operation"
POV/source-misuse has occurred also in WWII topics outside of antisemitism in Poland. This was added by socks to several articles, e.g. [40]+[41], but focusing on Poles in Belarus[42] (oddly the sock missed Ukraine - so I added it), problems:
- USSR-wide, not Belarus.
- Poor sources - seemingly many, but 8 out of 11, are Tomasz Sommer's (plwiki) (politician (KORWiN) / editor of Najwyższy Czas!) book published by 3SMedia(worldcat) (Sommer is on their board) - the book, book store, tabloid interview, op-eds/discussion/review of the book, etc.
- 1 source - [43] - the bookhaven blog describing an e-mail by Snyder - doesn't support the text it refs.
- Two good sources - misrepresented. Neither Michael Ellman nor Simon Sebag Montefiore conclude this
"amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention"
. Ellmman writes it might or may qualify,[39] whereas Montefiore uses "mini-genocide".[40] Ellman also doesn't contain "0.4 percent" (the bookhaven blog does contain this, but isn't citing this).
I replaced[44] the content based on three mainstream journal articles that actually relate to Belarus. Reverts of this sock-introduced material with misrepresentations/BLP-violations: VM,MVBW,VM,VM,VM. See Talk:Poles in Belarus#Ellman & Montefiore, Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment#Ellman & Montefiore, Talk:Polish Operation of the NKVD#Recent edits - where VM and MVBW([45]) are seemingly seriously arguing that "might"/"may"/"there is as yet no authoritative ruling" is a definitive yes.
Poeticbent/Volunteer Marek: CKZP
Created by sock, challenged as such. VM revert1, VM revert2 - "well sourced", absent in talk. Cited source doesn't mention CKZP, or most of what it is reffing, and in fact contradicts the WikiText:
- cited page 70, has a quote on economic hardship in Israel,[41] no - "higher standard of living".
- The source discusses Yitzhak Raphael in page 71, not 70, from page 72 it seems these proposals were mostly rejected.[42]
Poeticbent/Volunteer Marek: Datner
added by sock, mildly inaccurate and SYNTH. VM restores, adding a source, VM reverts V challenge, PA on talk, inserts a second source. VM's first source contains nothing on Datner or the commission,[46] the second says the commission was liquidated and replaced by the IPN (and not that it is part of the IPN).[47] Source added by Xx236 supports the rest of the sentence, but not the IPN.[48] Minor, but indicative of fidelity to sources.
references
|
---|
References
|
Evidence presented by My very best wishes
Icewhiz makes accusations and edits, but can not justify them
- Icewhiz said this (“a redline conduct issue”) meaning this edit by VM. What? It was written: "a Polish officer ... of the Polish People's Republic." VM just removed one of the "Polish". But somehow Icewhiz perceived this edit as "a redline conduct issue" because Morel "happened to be Jewish". - see discussion.
- This edit by Icewhiz is like removing word "Nazi" from an article about crimes by Nazi Germany (so it become just "Germany") - see discussion.
Icewhiz removes sourced information about political repression against Polish population
This recent series of edits [49],[50],[51],[52],[53], [54][55],[56],[57],[58]. None of the removed content was even remotely antisemitic, except maybe only this (note edit summary). However, instead of simply removing "Jewish" (which would be reasonable), Icewhiz removes info that the person was involved "in Stalinist regime show trials of the 1950s" and implicated in the arrests and executions (She served as a state prosecutor, as sourced on the page). With regard to several last removals, Icewhiz tells it was "just" an ethnic cleansing, rather than genocide (discussion). Not according to academic RS [59], [60].
Why Icewhiz is doing this? I think this is mostly an elaborate game to provoke Polish users who will follow his edits, so he can cry wolf (aka wikistalking and tag-teaming) when it comes to submitting his WP:AE report or the arbitration request. I mean this section of this page. So, he first asks VM not to follow his edits, and then starts editing numerous pages on Polish history, and not just editing, but removing huge pieces of sourced information. Of course VM will appear on these pages. And what had happened? In some cases VM worked towards a compromise solution. In others, he reverted with edit summaries like "Please explain specific concerns on talk". And what Icewhiz does? Start talking? No. He brings this here.
Since I know VM for a long time, I am sure he did everything only to improve the content and not to harass anyone (although he apparently considers Icewhiz as a disruptive user who needs to be watched). And the content indeed has been improved or remains about the same on the affected pages. For example, current version of even this page is a significant improvement compare to the version initially created by Icewhiz, whatever had happen in between. That was not wikistalking, and it could be a productive collaboration, but Icewhiz brought this to WP:AE.
Icewhiz does not work cooperatively with others
Icewhiz suggest some sanctions with respect to VM, Piotrus, Xx236, Poeticbent (who is already inactive due to his conflict with Icewhiz), GizzyCatBella, Tatzref and MyMoloboaccount. Come on. I am sure all of them have some POV (everyone does), but they do contribute positively to Polish history. Consider this comment by Molobo and this response by Icewhiz . Saying that genocidal policies by Nazi were directed only against Polish "dissenters and elites" sounds like anti-Polish sentiment by Icewhiz, because this is an obvious misrepresentation of Nazi crimes against Polish civilians. Perhaps Icewhiz thinks that others downplay crimes against Jews and therefore downplays the crimes committed by Nazi, Soviet NKVD and communists against Polish people. If so, this is very bad attitude for editing in such sensitive subject area.
- Two comments about evidence by Icewhiz:
- It includes a lot of references because almost all of the conflicts are content disputes where everyone can selectively bring different RS to support his POV, just as Icewhiz does on this page.
- Icewhiz accuses all contributors with whom he had content disagreements, including banned and inactive contributors and me. This is because he is in minority in these content disputes and wants to "win" them by fighting the WP:Battle.
Evidence presented by François Robere
VM: PA, ASPERSIONS and assumptions of bad faith
- Accusation of conducting a "smear campaign": [61][62]
- Frequent accusations of falsifying sources ("making shit up"), which he readily admits: [63]
- Accusations of misleading editors: [64][65][66]
- An "all in one": [67]
VM: OR or suggestions of OR
- Removing, or supporting the removal of sources deemed "Communist"/"Stalinist" with no supporting evidence: [70][71] (unless they support his position [72]). The first is a borderline BLPTALK violation as well - Krakowski passed away Sept. 2018; the discussion took place less than a month later.
- Suggesting we do OR to involve a Jewish leader in a massacre: [73][74]
- @Volunteer Marek: Your very first sentence there is: "it would be useful if we could establish what was the involvement, if any, of Abba Kovner." Your rationale? "his unit operated in the same region" and most of the sources are poor. The question is - if none of the good sources mention him, and he isn't mentioned in the article,[75] then why bother digging into it? To chase some threads published in far right websites? We don't do that - that would be OR. And the way you asked it wasn't particularly subtle: "Did Aba Kovner have anything to do with this massacre or is that just a couple sources mixing up their stories?" is about as neutral a question as "did the CIA have anything to do with 9/11, or is it just a couple of sources..?"
VM: "BATTLEGROUND mentality"
- Filing a superfluous AE at the eve of an ARBCOM case: [76]
Xx236: BLPTALK violations
Xx236: PA
MyMoloboaccount: Sourcing
- Added sources about the Czech Republic [97] and the de facto post-war situation [98] as if they're about international law and apply to Poland (the third citation was malformed, so I couldn't verify it [same diff]). Both quotes are also cherry picks: both sources immediately follow with exceptions.
- They also added several news sources for the same purpose, then stonewalled questions on their credibility.[99][100][101][102]
- Cherry picking: [103][104]
MyMoloboaccount: Bias and POV pushing
Tatzref: False accusations
- Repeated false accusations against Icewhiz and K.e.coffman of "concocting a bogus attempt to discredit [a source]",[114][115][116] despite being refuted twice.[117][118]
Tatzref: Misrepresenting sources
- Misrepresenting sources throughout this discussion (in particular from this message onwards; Icewhiz's and my comments follow, with source readouts further down [119][120]). This later evolved to a BLP violation.[121]
- Copied citations from a banned source.[122] Case was closed without prejudice.[123]
Overview: Balance and Consensus
Assuming the Wikipedia process works,[124] repeated application of the process will approach neutrality and accuracy. It follows that a good way to establish relative neutrality and accuracy is to examine the process application history:
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
We can thus easily calculate the percentage of votes of each editor that accorded with the general consensus. Adjusting for discussions where the impact of the proposal was favorable to the OP regardless of the formal result (namely RfC: Does a source support a categorical statement and AfD: Heaven for the nobles), we arrive at the following table:
Editor | # votes* | % of votes within consensus** | % of votes within consensus, adjusted for impact** |
---|---|---|---|
E-960 | 5 | 20 | 20 |
François Robere | 12 | 66.7 | 83.3 |
GizzyCatBella | 11 | 27.3 | 27.3 |
Icewhiz | 13 | 69.2 | 84.6 |
K.e.coffman | 10 | 80 | 100 |
MyMoloboaccount | 7 | 28.6 | 28.6 |
My very best wishes | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Nihil Novi | 9 | 33.3 | 33.3 |
Piotrus | 8 | 50 | 50 |
Poeticbent | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Slatersteven | 5 | 60 | 60 |
Tatzref | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Volunteer Marek | 7 | 42.9 | 42.9 |
Xx236 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
So, for example, my votes accorded with the tallied consensus in 66.7% of the 12 votes I took part in, or 83.3% if we adjust for the vote's impact (eg. re-sourcing a statement). Mind this isn't the whole picture: RSN, BLPNB, FTN and NOR discussions aren't formally tallied, so you should review the table for those.
Evidence presented by MJL
I'm not involved in this case nor have historically had significant connections with either user. I'm going to be submitting some boring evidence for the sake of process. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Edited: 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I have given a brief overview of some selected moments both editors had. If this completely useless, any clerk is welcome to remove it. I just ask to be pinged in the edit summary please, so I know for the future. If any further analysis is asked of me, I will be happy to provide as well. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek's history with Arbcom
On 3 November 2010, Volunteer Marek requested [146] and was granted [147] an account rename citing personal privacy. [148]
- VM was a party to WP:EEML
In Eastern European mailing list, after being opened by motion, [149] Volunteer Marek was added as a party. [150]
This ultimately led to a finding of fact, an admonishment and a sanction against the editor (the admonishment was to all participants). [151]
- Previous sanction against VM rescinded by Arbcom
On 21 June 2010, the committee removed its previous sanction against the editor. [152]
This was after a previous motion to amend the case that narrowed the topic ban having been enacted. [153]
Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz's history with Eastern Europe and VM
This is only a partial account of Icewhiz's history with processes related to VM and topics related to Eastern Europe.
- Icewhiz filed an unsuccessful 3RR request against VM
On 29 June 2018, Icewhiz filed a report against Volunteer Marek. [154] It was closed with a note to seek dispute resolution in the future. [155]
- Both editors were topic banned at WP:AE for battleground behavior
An AE request was filed by Icewhiz. [156] This request was m=ade after a then-recent AE filling against Icewhiz. [157]
The AE request filed by Icewhiz was closed with a topic ban related to history of Poland in World War II (1933-45) for three months
. [158]
- Icewhiz submitted an amendment request to Eastern Europe
Recently, Icewhiz attempted to have Arbcom amend Eastern Europe. The request would have Arbcom apply (among other things) a sourcing restriction for Polish-Jewish relations. [159] It was closed with no action. [160]
Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Evidence presented by MyMoloboaccount
Provocative and inflamming edits by Icewhiz
As a long standing user who has written such articles on Holocaust as Operation 1005 I see many of comments by Icewhiz and edits as very provocative,and it is difficult not to see them as aiming at inflamming discussion or other editors.Edits often contribute nothing but ethnic based remarks and inflammatory claims that seem to be aimed at stirring up arguments rather than constructive work on encyclopedia.
- In this edit Icewhiz was claiming that Nazis only murdered Polish "dissenters and elites" rather than women and children; when I asked ""Are you claiming Polish civilians, women and children murdered by Nazis were dissenters",Icewhiz response was "dissenters and elites"[161]
It's hard not to see this response as either WP:Bait or attempt to inflame the discussion.
- In here[162] Icewhiz removes information about Polish rescue of Jews under the title "remove Polish rescue myth"
- [163]Icewhiz falsified a source stating that villagers massacred by Soviet/Jewish unit were supposedly hunting down Jews.There is nothing about Naliboki village on page 280. To make it easier, I uploaded a screenshot from the source in question showing that there is nothing about Naliboki villagers attacking Jews on page 280[164].Icewhiz then claimed the statement about Naliboki villagers is on page 283. Here is the screen of page 283-nothing about inhabitants of Naliboki village doing such a thing[165].Falsification.
Outside of Polish nationalist circles (supposedly, Polish airmen in the UK even plotted flying to bomb Buckingham palace and parliament) Icewhiz sourced this quite controversial claim and statement to Najwyższy Czas!. Why did he do so if he himself was adding information that NajwyzszyCzas! is highly unreliable source?[167]This seems a clear case of POV pushing and inflamming the discussion to provoke others using unreliable sources-and Icewhiz would be perfectly aware of that as he edited article on this source.
Here Icewhiz states that Ethnic Poles were responsible for killing and capturing Jews, the book describes actions carried out by Ukrainian and Belarussian villagers as well, yet Icewhiz edits the article to mention only "ethnic Poles" Contrast this edit with the following different edit by Icewhiz: [169] An order in which ethnic Poles were targetted for executions(and were majority victims)-Icewhiz removes Poles and replaces it with "people".
- Here[170]
Removal of the whole article about infamous mass murderer including list of atrocities, the article had several reliable sources including Cambridge University Press(I count only one which could be removed)
- Here [171] Icewhiz removed information that Poles were target of genocide by Nazi Germany with the claim "unsupported by source".I have uploaded the screenshot of the source in question,it does state that there was genocide[172].
- "He's advancing polocaust, which is quite fringey" Ethnic based deregatory term and statement about Nazi Germany genocide against Polish people. .
- Obviously, it is possible to find polophilic writers in English Ethnic based attack to discredit source.
- [173]Stating that largest Polish anti-Nazi resistance group Home Army is responsible for deaths of 100,000-200,000 Jews, using a quote by controversial author that doesn't even have anything about Home Army in it.
- [174]Stating that Polish civilians attacked in massacres and raids by Soviet and Jewish partisans were engaging in theft of Jewish property.Seems to be nothing more than attempt to provoke other editors here.
- we wouldn't add such a section to the Nazi Party and here ,Certainly - we describe crimes by the Schutzstaffel and Wehrmacht.Comparing Polish resistance against Nazi Germany to Nazi forces, repeated several times,seems to have been aimed at provoking other editors.
- Here[175] in an article about anti-Polish sentiment Icewhiz removes a racist insult used as an example(sourced to BBC website) about "Poles sucking antisemitism with their mother's milk", stating "lack of context in that Polish complicity as well as direct responsibility for Jewish deaths is not discussed"
- Finally, Icewhiz provocative editing is not limited to Polish-only topics.
In this article about Lehi, a terrorist organization calling for anihiliation of Arab people, which sought alliance with Nazi Germany, Icewhiz has tried to delete information about it's links with Nazis[176], and claimed that lead about this terrorist organization should have views "of those who justify it"[177]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, I agree that that the genocide against Jewish population was far more total and immediate than against ethnic Poles(which was foreseen on a longer timescale in around 15 years). Neverthless UN and Nuremburg Trials classify actions of Nazis against Poles as genocide, and naming mass murdered women and children as "elites and dissenters" seems like a weird, highly POV claim.Icewhiz seems to have enough knowledge to know it is untrue.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by Piotrus
Poeticbent created numerous quality articles on Polish Jewish history
Poeticbent created and/or DYKed 100+ P-J articles: Jewish ghettos in German-occupied Poland and 10+ individual ghetto articles like Pińsk Ghetto, on Holocaust crimes against the Jews like Grossaktion Warsaw, on documents like Einsatzgruppen reports or The Black Book of Polish Jewry, on Polish activists helping the Jews like Julian Grobelny, Maria Kotarba, Alfreda and Bolesław Pietraszek, Józef and Wiktoria Ulma , Krystyna Dańko, on Jewish organizations like Central Committee of Polish Jews and Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland , on several Jewish cemeteries like Jewish Cemetery, Kielce, on synagogues like Kupa Synagogue or Wolf Popper Synagogue, on places of memory like the Majdanek State Museum or Garden of the Righteous Among the Nations, on several pogroms like Proskurov pogrom, on many Holocaust perpetrators like Wilhelm Gerstenmeier, on death camps like Poniatowa concentration camp, Vulkanwerft concentration camp or Szebnie concentration camp. He also contributed much content to Holocaust trains, The Holocaust in Poland and dozens of others.
He also created useful infographics like a map of the Holocaust in Poland
He also got the Treblinka extermination camp to GA.
Even now, he is listed in the Top 3000 most active Wikipedians by edit count.
Poeticbent received an unfair topic ban
He received a lengthy topic ban at AE from Polish-Jewish topics for a single diff perceived as violating NPA, in the context of being accused of antisemitic attitude. This was a surprise of many editors. He decided to retire rather then appeal it.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by Xx236
I support Piotrus
I fully support Piotrus. Serious editors shouldn't be expelled by fanatics.Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- That is sufficient for a permanent topic ban - so Icewhiz and a number of his supporters deserve 10 times topic ban. BTW - does Poeticbent read Yiddish/Hebrew? Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
AK and Jews
We have a recent academic book by Zimmermann, who doesn't seem to be a radical Polish nationalist. Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Volunteer Marek
Rebuttal of Icewhiz
- I will answer in more detail later, but I would like to note that essentially all of Icewhiz's diffs against me involve minor, fairly uncontroversial edits which then Icewhiz tries to pretend constitute some horrible crime, and he does this by trying to falsely associate me and smear me by bringing up irrelevant notions or sources which I never endorsed or used. In particular he writes: "The NSZ is known as antisemitic,[1][2] killing many Jews". Yes it is, and I've never said anything otherwise. In fact I've removed far-right bullshit which tried to whitewash the organization myself. The diff Icewhiz presents has NOTHING TO DO with whether NSZ was antisemitic etc. Icewhiz is trying to falsely insinuate (in a pretty vicious smear) that I disagree with the notion that NSZ was antisemitic. Nonsense.
Likewise he keeps bringing up "far-right Nasz Dziennik" as if I had used this publication as I source. I never have and simply wouldn't. This is also just a false insinuation.
Both of these illustrate Icewhiz's manipulative approach to editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, which involves misrepresenting other users (as well as sources but that's a separate issue) and exemplify the underlying problems that his presence in the topic area have caused. Nobody wants to have a discussion with someone who's busy making false horrible attacks against you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Here is another one. Icewhiz says:
[19] - "per sources, "enormous", "most" etc. ..." - claiming "most Poles" (more than 12 million) were involved in Holocaust rescue is in WP:FRINGE turf. Mainstream sources see rescuers as a minority.[8] "Most" rather impossible to source outside of Nasz Dziennik,[9] see also Rydzyk.[10][11][12]
. This is the diff of my edit Icewhiz is complaining about [178]
Here is reality:
- Neither I nor anyone else used "Nasz Dziennik" or "Rydzyk" as a source as Icewhiz's statement falsely insinuates. No idea where this comes from. This is Icewhiz trying to use a non-sequitur to engage in smear-by-association.
- Likewise it is absolutely NOT true that I or anyone else claimed that "most Poles were involved in Holocaust rescue". The dispute is between using the phrase "some Poles" (rescued Jews during the Holocaust) and "many Poles". Icewhiz falsely pretends that I am claiming that "most" Poles were involved in rescue. "Many" is not the same as "most". Icewhiz is simply lying. "Most" would indeed be FRINGE. "Many" is not.
- The sources indeed use the term "enormous effort" to describe the rescue efforts. "Many" reflects "enormous" better than "some" which is an obvious attempt to downplay the rescue efforts. The sources also state at minimum "hundreds of thousands" involved in rescue efforts, possibly much higher. That sounds like "many" to me.
- The sources indeed use the word "most" to refer to the fact that there are more Poles among the Righteous Among Nations than any other nationality. So it's "most out of any country", not "most out of the population of a country". Icewhiz is using a false equivalence to pretend I said something I didn't.
- I have no idea where Icewhiz gets the "more than 12 million" from or what the hey it's suppose to mean. This doesn't appear either in my edit, in the sources, or in the article.
This is WP:TENDENTIOUS at best, and a straight up deceitful misrepresentation of another person's edits by Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Another one. Icewhiz says: "Introduced by MyMoloboaccount in 2012. 2017 challenge on basis of "There is no evidenc for the passage, the outrageous comparing of Poles and Jews in the last sentence ist terrible", VM reverts in 2019." - Ummmm, my revert [179] was of a sockpuppet of indef banned user [180], so first, it's legitimate on the basis of WP:BANREVERT alone. Kaiser Von Europa was banned for spreading neo-Nazi propaganda and making threats, doxxing, and extensive sock puppetry by User:Salvio_giuliano. He's also banned from other Wikis (German, Dutch too I believe?) I have no idea why Icewhiz is complaining that I reverted edits by a neo-Nazi sockpuppet here. It seems, the neo-Nazi sock puppet was anti-Polish. It kind of looks like the sock saw the general tone of Icewhiz's edits and tried to piggy back on them. That's... kind of Icewhiz's problem, not mine.
My revert undid a whole bunch of POV changes made by the sock account, not just one particular sentence that Icewhiz objects to. As far as that one particular sentence goes, it's a simple content dispute and when Icewhiz raised it on talk, User:Piotrus remove the part Icewhiz objected to. So.... why is this "evidence"? All it shows is that when Icewhiz does make an attempt at non-confrontational communication on talk, disputes get resolved. Again, I'm puzzled why is he even bringing this up here. It's just silly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Rebuttal of Francois Robere
More later, but the following is pretty despicable and false:
Francois Robere accuses me of: Suggesting we do OR to involve a Jewish leader in a massacre: [50][51]
. This is the discussion FR links. As is very clear from it I do no such thing. FFS, what I do is THE OPPOSITE. My first comment there explicitly states "a lot of far-right, anti-semitic, websites which place blame on him (Kovner)". In the second link provided by FR (Icewhiz derailed the first discussion) 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.". How in the freakin' llamas is that trying to a "involve a Jewish leader in a massacre"???????? It's the OPPOSITE. I am clearly saying this guy (Kovner) WASN'T involved despite the fact that some sources claim he was. This is... gaslighting? Lying? Pretending white is black and black is white? Up is down and down is up? It's exactly this kind of dishonesty in discussions which has led me to, on several occasions to tell FR to "stop making stuff up" which he presents in some of his other diffs. What else would you call this? He is making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@FR - Kovner's participation is mentioned in a number of sources, most of which are junk, but not all - for example this book by Robert Cohen or the Jewish Virtual Library (which can't be characterized as anti-semitic). Basically, it's a somewhat common error in some sources. That's what motivated my question. And if you sincerely think that this constitutes an attempt "to involve a Jewish leader in a massacre" then you have some serious reading comprehension problems. But I don't actually think you sincerely believe that. You're just... making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
And seriously, if someone is willing to show up to an ArbCom Case evidence page and lie so blatantly like FR does here then it obviously means that ... they don't have a very high opinion of the ArbCom members intellectual abilities. Why else would you think you could get away with it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Tatzref
- Icewhiz has been involved in disruptive, hoax editing since I joined Wiki last year. Here are some examples. Icewhiz repeatedly removed a reference in the article on the Bielski Partisans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielski_partisans) to a major book, Sowjetische Partisanen, by historian Bogdan Musial, published by Schoningh, a renowned German publishing house. The book was hailed by Yehuda Bauer, a leading Holocaust historian, as “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia (Yad Vashem Studies, vol. 38, no. 2). Icewhiz alleged it was “fringe” and “SPS” (self-published sources).
- 06:16, 28 May 2018 Icewhiz talk contribs 20,929 bytes +137 Highly questionable fringe SPS.
- 07:16, 1 June 2018 Icewhiz talk contribs 19,592 bytes -659 Undid revision 843878281 by GizzyCatBella (talk) No consensus to include this non-English fringe work
- In order to bolster a bogus claim that the Polish authorities blocked the return of Jews from DP camps in Germany, something that major Holocaust historians dispute, Icewhiz engaged in a flagrant misrepresentation, claiming “The “grossly discrimanatory” Polish act was criticized by US president Truman.” The source he cited, however, said nothing of the kind. In fact, Truman was criticizing certain provisions of the 1948 Displaced Persons Act, not the actions of the Polish government. See History of Jews in Poland – Talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland.
- Icewhiz has also been involved in disruptive editing in purely Polish-related matters. He recently deleted all the edits I made to the Canadian Polish Congress article on the stated pretext: “We prefer reliable secondary sources over the website of the subject.” When I restored several edits for which I had provided third party sources, he accused me of edit warring on my Talk page. When I asked him to explain why he was removing properly sourced information, he failed to do so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tatzref; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_Polish_Congress):
- Icewhiz, you are the one who is deleting all my edits wholesale including sourced information:
- 21:23, 9 May 2019 Tatzref talk contribs 10,942 bytes -29 Views - restored scholarly book by Patryk Polec removed by Icewhiz under false pretenses; removed nonRS that contains a third party attribution (not a direct quote)
- 21:03, 9 May 2019 Tatzref talk contribs 10,971 bytes +324 History: Solidarity Movement - restored reliably sourced information removed by Icewhiz under false pretenses
- 20:43, 9 May 2019 Tatzref talk contribs 9,889 bytes +414 History: Katyn monument - Restored reliably sourced information removed by Icewhiz under false pretenses
- Please explain each of these these reverts.Tatzref (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Tatzref (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Paul Siebert
The description of the image uploaded by Poeticbent is definitely an anti-Jewish hoax, because the word "וואַלן" (elections) is clearly seen in the first line, so the current description (election banner) is correct, and the original one (Jews welcome Soviet troops) was wrong. That is sufficient for a permanent topic ban, and I do not understand how can Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus speak about lifting a ban. However, the uploader claimed that the original file was a postcard that says the photo was a Soviet photo (which means it was not taken at first days of German occupation, as the current description says). Unfortunately, the photo presented at that web site is just a central fragment of the photo uploaded by Poeticbent, so he definitely took it somewhere else. In connection to that, I think it makes sense to ask for an explanation from Poeticbent or some person who can contact him about the actual source of this picture, and about actual description of the actual image. If the evidence will be provided that the original description was not invented by Poeticbent, that means he just made a sincere mistake by reproducing someone else's hoax. However, until such evidence is provided, it is impossible to speak about any lifting of any sanctions.
Another diff has drawn my attention. Poeticbent added a table to the Ministry of Public Security (Poland) article where the ethnic composition of the ministry is shown. The table is properly sourced, but it is not supplemented by any comments in the article, so, obviously, the table implies that the idea the source is conveying is "Jews played a major role in Stalinist repressions" (otherwise it is not clear why it is needed there, and, by the way, I am going to delete it as irrelevant). However, on the page 63, the cited book says (my translation):
- "However, it would be a great oversimplification to treat the representatives of Jewish nationality working in security as a compact, homogeneous and maintaining their national autonomy. These people felt primarily communists. Many - as demonstrated by their biographies - also felt Polish, trying not to remember their Jewish roots. Jews did not know that they were Jews until 1968.
That means, by taking the table out of context, Poeticbent distorted the idea of the source he used. Obviously, the purpose was to connect Jews (as an ethnic group) and Stalinist crimes. This Żydokomuna-style mentality seems to be an essential part of Poeticbent's editorial pattern, and I cannot understand why other Polish editors (including those who present their evidences on that page) see no problem with that. Moreover, they seem to edit in the same vein: I've just reverted Żydokomuna-style edits that stayed for years - and nobody saw any problem with that. Something is definitely wrong with the group of Polish editors. Of course, majority of anti-Jewish edits they make (or tolerate) is not a violation of our policy sensu stricto, however, I sincerely cannot understand why they cannot understand that something is fundamentally wrong with what they are doing. I haven't done any systematic search yet, but I am afraid many Poland related articles are infested with this type petty anti-Jewish stuff (formally, non-punishable according to our policy), and they are waiting for some Hercules to purge these Augean stables.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Stefka Bulgaria
Tatzref: SPA for KPK
Tatzref has 340 edits, and comes across as a WP:SPA for KPK. The KPK denies Polish involvement in anti-Jewish pogroms, including the 1946 Kielce pogrom, that no one seriously disputes. Piotr Wróbel said "that this group is aggressively right-wing".[181] Tatzref's first edit was to promote Mark Paul (RSN, RfC). Here Tatzref seems to support Paul's views of a Jewish-Nazi-Soviet conspiracy - page 10 here: "There is overwhelming evidence that Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting hundreds of Polish officers and officials in the aftermath of the September 1939 campaign and in deporting thousands of Poles to the Gulag. Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military, constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945.". This goes on: [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189]
Also: [190] (Ewa Kurek), [191] (Nasz Dziennik).
Tatzref added WP:PUFFERY to Canadian Polish Congress - [192][193] - sourced to KPK itself.
Tatzref: response to COI
Tatzref has been evasive when queried by User:K.e.coffman on KPK WP:COI: July 2018, March 2019
Tatzref: False claims
ARBCOM diff: in Bielski partisans, it seems Bogdan Musiał (dewiki), who is described as ethnonationalist historian [194][195][196] (reliable sources on enwiki removed by Volunteer Marek), was removed by User:Pinkbeast: [197]. Icewhiz then reintroduced it: [198], then self-reverted "Oops - edited old version! Undo." after Pinkbeast alerted them
My Very Best Wishes: Tag teaming
There is a pattern of piling on between My Very Best Wishes, Volunteer Marek and Piotrus: [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207]. Also AE: [208], [209], [210], [211], [212].
Evidence presented by Starship.paint
Inaccurate statement by Icewhiz
[213] (08:34, 10 June 2019) Icewhiz claims on this page that Poeticbent was confirmed to Loosmark on 14 September 2011 per an SPI investigation. However, that investigation actually states Likely to be Loosmark
, not confirmed. starship.paint (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I pinged Icewhiz in my above post, and they rectified their statement accordingly (13:33, 12 June 2019), striking confirmed and inserting likely. [214]. No other comments from me at this point. starship.paint (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.