→Evidence presented by MJL: closing added with cleanup |
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 598: | Line 598: | ||
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? [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 20:36, 12 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? [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
====Francois Robere's table==== |
|||
Ok, as someone who works with data professionally, I just got to say: this table is silly. EVEN IF you AGF Francois that he filled in the table accurately there's the obvious problem of [[WP:CHERRY]]-picking and non-random sampling. These are not all the discussions/RfCs etc. that have been held in this topic area in the past two years. FR seems to have basically just gone through and made sure to pick out mostly those discussions where he voted in accordance with closure. And this isn't just my bad faith talking. FR does have a history of falsely claiming consensus for his edits. For example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=899679460 here] (at the time the split was about 50/50, maybe even leaning against FR's "side", or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=900177899 here] (FR pretends that only myself and Piotrus were for inclusion, in fact there were at least two other editors) and then again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=900260469 here] (at this point I think his claim of "obvious consensus" was just taunting designed to provoke because if anything was "obvious" at this point, it was the clear lack of consensus either way). |
|||
But since here we're suppose to evaluate the evidence presented, let's NOT assume that he filled in the table accurately. Let's actually do some fact checking. I'm not gonna check every single user he has in there but I'll check myself and him. And in the very first line we see misrepresentation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_7#RfC_on_whether_a_source_support_a_categorical_statement This is the discussion FR] is referencing. The question was "does source support statement". FR voted No. I voted Yes. RfC was closed as "moot" since other sources have been added. FR counts this as against me and in favor of himself. That's clearly manipulative. It should either NOT be counted at all (as "moot" suggests) or counted for me and against him, since at the end of the day, the sentence was included. |
|||
And then there is inclusion of "trivial" discussions which were closed with WP:SNOW [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polish_collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany such as this one]. This appears to be a way to "pad" the "agreement with closure" results in FR's favor. Personally, when I see a discussion where the outcome is pretty much predetermined cuz WP:SNOW, I don't see a point in voting for it. So FR adds himself a few "wins" by including such discussions. If this table was honest, then he'd exclude essentially non-controversial discussions such as these. |
|||
The calculations in the lower table are also off. For myself, I count 5 out of 7 instances of agreement with the closure (71.4%) or 4 out of 6 (66.66%) if we don't count the first listed discussion at all. For FR I count either 8 out of 13 (61.5%) if we count first discussion or 8 out of 12 (66.66%) if we don't. So effectively our numbers are about the same, or even, mine are possibly higher. |
|||
If you really want me to, I can calculate the [[standard error]]s and [[confidence intervals]] here and do a [[t test]] to show that statistically speaking our %'s are basically the same, but really, with non-random sampling and such a low N (13 at best) it's kind of meaningless. As is FR's whole table. |
|||
So basically, EVEN WITH cherry picked data, FR still has to do some sneaky data manipulation and massaging to get the conclusion he wants. This is really the case of "lies, damned lies and statistics".[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 20:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==Evidence presented by Tatzref== |
==Evidence presented by Tatzref== |
Revision as of 20:45, 14 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
Current word length: 6737 (limit: 1000); diff count: 187 (limit: 100). Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.
Volunteer Marek PAs
"bigotry": [2] (after I removed fiction)
"F* sleazeball": [3]
"nonesense...peddling": [4]
"racial criteria": [5]
"extremism/extremist":[8][9][10]
"dishonest":[11]
Volunteer Marek ASPERSIONS
WP:ASPERSIONS: [12][13][14],[15]
Socking allegation w/o evidence: [16], [17],[18]
Volunteer Marek Hounding
Requested to stop: December 2018, April 2019. 15-30/5 followed to ~38 articles,[19] Partial list of new/never-edited:
Volunteer Marek: POV
- [20]: "No idea what a "former Jews" means" - list includes baptized Catholic.
- [21],[22]: subject was Catholic."clarify it": Still no Catholic. See Talk:Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga#Jew?.
- [23] - cited photograph: no support, treating Jews in Soviet units as distinct. "Code-word" in far-right Nasz Dziennik.[1]
- [24]: removing "Polish". [25]: "Polish" as ethnicity, not nationality (contrast Dutch (Uri Rosenthal), French (Robert Badinter)).
- ANI on MOS:ETHNICITY - VM commented&aware 23-May-2019.
- [26]+[27]: removed "Polish".
- [28]: restoring sock's lede:
"communist official of Jewish background"
(+SYNTH, POV, a V issues -"Romkowski himself taught Różański everything about torture"
not in source.[2] Deadlinks sources.[3][4] See VM's pace here: 06:59,07:00.) - [29]: doubling-down:
"...(this in the case of people who were both Polish and Jewish). I am saying, leave both out...."
. Counter: WP:MOSETHNICITY. - [30] - edit-summary:
""enormous", "most" etc. ..."
. Mainstream sources see rescuers as a minority.[5] Saying "Most Poles" were Holocaust rescuers is WP:FRINGE turf, in the Nasz Dziennik area-code,[6] see also Rydzyk.[7][8][9] - [31] -
"...there was still a rival government"
: in 1968 (see Polish government-in-exile#Postwar history). Also "radical negation".[10] - [32],[33] - RS/BLP, RSes and IWP itself support - to answer VM's
"LOL. So, how many sooper sekrit agents...?"
[34] - one could guesstimate from IWP's employment facts*enrollment. - [35] -
"remove some gratuitous and off topic Pole bashing"
. - [36] -
"It's a COATRACK for the whole disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV into this article"
. Source does tie,[11] Incompatible with with academic sources covering the topic past[12][13][14] and present[15][16][17] - Also: [37]
Volunteer Marek: BLPSOURCES/BLPPRIMARY
- [38]: removing positive peer-reviewed sources,[18][19] inserting negative WP:PRIMARY nationalist organization.[20][21][22] VM refers to negative as positive and vice-versa (Poland / BLP-subject).
Xx236 PAs
MyMoloboaccount / Volunteer Marek / Piotrus: Barczewo
Introduced by MyMoloboaccount in 2012. 2017 challenge, VM reverts in 2019. citation, municipality website, missing "eventually both Poles and Jews were classified as subhuman and targeted for extermination"
far outside mainstream scholarship. Piotrus reverts, again. Resolved: Talk:Barczewo#Dubious text.
Loosmark / Poeticbent
Loosmark banned 29-Nov-2010. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark/Archive, Poeticbent likely to Loosmark and confirmed to other 14-Sep-2011 socks. Unblocked 1-Mar-2012.
Poeticbent: "Jewish welcoming"
commons, wiki1, wiki2. Unsupported by citation.[23] Polish/English mismatch, Contradicted by sign's text, image composition, and source. fixedCommons,wiki1,wiki2
Poeticbent/GizzyCatBella: Stawiski
[44] PB-sock:User:Lewinowicz. Unsupported by citations. (e.g. single mention in Rossino[24]). Other sources contradict.[25][26] PB defends:2013, 2014, 2015, 2015. Reported outside.[27] fixed+more. GizzyCatBella "sourced and stable version", again. See Talk:Stawiski#Recent edits, GizzyCatBella TBANed at AE. Note VM: "there's nothing wrong with GCB restoring a previous stable version."
[45]VM+1
Poeticbent/Volunteer Marek: Radziłów
Poeticbent1,Poeticbent2,Poeticbent3,PBsock(User:Matalea). Misrepresentation emulates Stawiski.VM aware of Levin misuse per prior AE. VM "Restore Dov Levin", "not a misrepresentation" although "Lithuanian peasants". See Talk:Radziłów#Misrepresentation removed - Levin, self-revert. In fact, misquote ("local Poles"/"Polish families"), WP:CHERRY, lacking context, different (unknown) location.[28]
Poeticbent: Chełmno
Poeticent Jews and Poles from all nearby towns
: citation says otherwise,[29] as other sources.[30] fixed.
Poeticbent: Belzec
postwar gravedigging added in, wartime gravedigging added in 2009. Poeticbent: 2013 postwar changeup, 2014 wartime changeup, 2015 removal wartime, 2015 removal postwar, enter students. Beyond removal, this misrepresented citation:[31][32]
- Students cleaning in 90s, not 50s.
"second half of the 1950s the pursuit by Germany itself...drew the first serious attention to the site"
: Contradicted by source which has communist investigation in 1945, handed over to Germans, and gravedigging publicity/investigations.
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 doesn't match its citations. Kopciowski doesn't support "thousands", Klucze i kasa (Polish)[33] chapters by Skibińska and Krzyżanowski read differently. Skibińska[34] and Krzyżanowski,[35] summarize in English differently.
Piotrus reverted - admitted he didn't verify 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. non-RS Mark Paul.(Rfc)
Tatzref/Volunteer Marek/Piotrus/MVBW Krzyzanowski
Tatzref inserted. "Based on no research, Michael Meng speculates"
, clear BLPVio. "Based on research into court records, Lukasz Krzyzanowski concludes that "a relatively large number of properties" were returned."
: unreasonable summary of cited page.[36] WP:CHERRYPICKED, out of content, removed qualifications (two specific cities, "possession, not ownership", "on the basis of court records, can", + previous sentence "impossible to determine"). Krzyzanowski's self-use in English differs.[37] 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,[46] such a misrepresentation (named in our text) can have career ramifications.
Also discussions of off-mainstream source in segment:TP, RSN, RfC.
Poeticbent/Volunteer Marek/My Very Best Wishes: "Polish Operation"
POV/source-misuse in other WWII topics. Added by PB-socks to several articles: [47]+[48], focusing on Poles in Belarus[49] (socks missed Ukraine: so I added), problems:
- Poor sources: 8 of 11, are Tomasz Sommer's (plwiki) (politician (KORWiN) / editor of Najwyższy Czas!) book published by 3SMedia(worldcat) (Sommer on S3-board) + bookstore, tabloid coverage, op-eds/discussion/review.
- 1 source - [50] - 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 might/may,[38] Montefiore uses "mini-genocide".[39] Ellman also doesn't contain "0.4 percent" (the bookhaven blog has this, but isn't reffing the sentence)
I replaced[51] using three mainstream journal articles. Reverts 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([52]) are arguing that "might"/"may"/"there is as yet no authoritative ruling" is a definitive yes.
Poeticbent/Volunteer Marek: CKZP
PB-sock(User:Matalea), challenged . VM revert1, VM revert2 - "well sourced", absent in talk. Citation doesn't contain most of what it's reffing, and contradicts the WikiText:
- cited page 70, has a quote on economic hardship in Israel,[40] no - "higher standard of living".
- Yitzhak Raphael is on page 71, not 70, from page 72 seems proposals were mostly rejected.[41]
Poeticbent/Volunteer Marek: Datner
sock(User:Matalea), SYNTH+mildly inaccurate. VM restores, adds source, VM reverts V-challenge, PA on talk, inserts second source. First source contains nothing on Datner or commission,[53] the second says the commission was liquidated and replaced by the IPN (and not that it is part of the IPN).[54] Source added by Xx236 doesn't support IPN.[55] Minor, yet indicative of sourcing.
MyMoloboaccount/Volunteer Marek: Jew with a coin
MyMoloboaccount,MyMoloboaccount,VM,VM. Talk (VM absent). Contradicted by Polish source,[42] + English source summary.[43]
Piotrus: tag-teaming
E-Mail solicitation:
- E-960: [56], [57], PA.
- GizzyCatBella: [58], affirmative.
Following 26/2 VM TBAN: 03:52 27 Feb (VM 26 Feb) (first Piotrus edit), and 03:50, 27 February 2019 (VM 26 Feb) (last Piotrus 2007).
Pitorus 04:20 15 April, VM 04:40 15 April. Also: "sources are clearly wrong",closure comment
MyMoloboaccount rebuttal
- "Polophile" is in normative use.[44][45]
- "Polocaust" advanced by Polish government.[46][47]
- June 2018 edit to Naliboki, see Talk:Naliboki massacre#Claims withdrawn and historians apologized.. The chapter contains "Naliboki Forest" (village adjacent) and the citations it uses refer to the village. Following discussion this was removed.
- Jan T. Gross is college required reading, among top-cited in field (gScholar). See WikiEd bringing Gross to RSN.
- The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust[59] presents a majority viewpoint followed by a minority viewpoint. In their conclusion,[60] they adopt Jews+Gypsies+handicapped.
MVBW rebuttal
- despite being informed, as of 14-June, MVBW is citing J. Otto Pohl who is on a different subject (deportations) and has no mention of Poles or the "Polish operation".
- WP:PA: [61] -
" be regarded either as whitewashing crimes by Nazi ... or as anti-Polish sentiment by Icewhiz
. Oddly my "anti-Polish sentiment" led me to suggest (in the diff MVBW proffers) we use"the fairly well written, and better developed, Polish Wikipedia page on this topic"
. I have often found the Polish Wikipedia to be much more balanced/better-sourced in the topic area, than the English one. An observation made externally as well.[48][49] - Nazi crimes against the Polish nation: I urge Arbs to contrast EnglishWiki version (top author: Poeticbent 37.8% of text) vs. PolishWiki version. The POV slant (even only lede) in English is striking. This exemplifies topic area: PolishWiki is Polish left-of-center POV, while EnglishWiki slants Polish right-wing POV.
- point3. MVBW and Piotrus, are comparing communist Poland to Nazi Germany. Very much outside of mainstream thought. And this is pervasive in the topic area - "communist"/"Stalinist" adjectives throughout articles. VM+MyMoloboaccount+Xx236+Piotrus challenging sources based on WP:OR(+blog) on their "Stalinism".
references
|
---|
References
|
Evidence presented by My very best wishes
Current word length: 846 (limit: 500); diff count: 30. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.
Anti-Polish edits by Icewhiz
- Icewhiz said this (“a redline conduct issue”) meaning this edit by VM. VM just removed one of two words "Polish" in same phrase ("a Polish officer ... of the Polish People's Republic"). Icewhiz refused to explain his accusation [62]. But that issue apparently triggered the incivil response by VM [63]. A reason to topic-ban VM or "gaming" by Icewhiz?
- In response to this comment by Molobo, Icewhiz said: this. Saying that genocidal policies by Nazi were directed only against Polish "dissenters and elites" sounds like anti-Polish sentiment by Icewhiz, because it misrepresents Nazi crimes against Polish civilians including women, children, etc. No wonder some of the users are loosing their temper (like VM) after such discussions. But Icewhiz insists he was right [64]. My reply [65].
- This edit by Icewhiz is like removing word "Nazi" from an article about crimes by Nazi Germany (so it become just "Germany"). The Communist Poland is a separate page and differs from modern Poland (same with Nazi Germany versus Germany).
- [66] (compare edit summary with text removed at the bottom of the diff) - a removal of well sourced information about anti-Polish sentiment in Israel with misleading edit summary.
- Icewhiz removes sourced information about political repression against Polish population [67],[68],[69],[70],[71], [72][73],[74],[75],[76]. With regard to several last removals, Icewhiz tells it was "just" an ethnic cleansing, rather than genocide (discussion). Not according to academic RS (The Crime of Genocide Committed against the Poles by the USSR before and during World War II: An International Legal Study, more general paper: [77]). This series of edits (and others) allowed Icewhiz to claim wikistalking. He first asks VM not to follow his edits, and then removes huge pieces of sourced information in numerous pages on Polish history. Of course VM will appear on these pages, but in all cases VM was looking for a compromise. Even in reverts like here he makes summaries like "Please explain specific concerns on talk". And what Icewhiz does? Start talking? No. He brings this here.
- That is what Polish users think about Icewhiz [78].
- Why Icewhiz is doing this? Maybe this is just a "gaming" to offend his content "opponents", force them to make incivil comments, and get them topic banned (as had happen already with VM, Poeticbent and GizzyCatBella). Or maybe he thinks that others downplay crimes against Jews and therefore downplays the crimes committed by Nazi, Soviet NKVD and communists against Polish people.
Evidence by Icewhiz:
- Icewhiz cites a lot of references because almost all of the conflicts are content disputes where everyone can bring different RS to support his POV. The repeated claims by Icewhiz that only his sources are good are typical for all POV pushers.
- He suggests sanctions with respect to VM, Piotrus, Xx236, Poeticbent , GizzyCatBella, Tatzref and MyMoloboaccount, i.e. all contributors with whom he had content disagreements. Does he want to "win" the content disputes by fighting the WP:Battle?
Evidence presented by François Robere
Current word length: 1246 (limit: 500); diff count: 87 (limit: 50). Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.
VM: PA, ASPERSIONS and assumptions of bad faith
- Accusation of conducting a "smear campaign": [79][80]
- Frequent accusations of falsifying sources ("making shit up"), which he readily admits: [81]
- Accusations of misleading editors: [82][83][84]
- An "all in one": [85]
VM: OR or suggestions of OR
- Removing, or supporting the removal of sources deemed "Communist"/"Stalinist" with no supporting evidence: [88][89] (unless they support his position [90]). 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: [91][92]
- @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,[93] 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: [94]
Xx236: BLPTALK violations
Xx236: PA
MyMoloboaccount: Sourcing
- Added sources about the Czech Republic [115] and the de facto post-war situation [116] 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.[117][118][119][120]
- Cherry picking: [121][122]
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]",[132][133][134] despite being refuted twice.[135][136]
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 [137][138]). This later evolved to a BLP violation.[139]
- Copied citations from a banned source.[140] Case was closed without prejudice.[141]
Overview: Balance and Consensus
Assuming the Wikipedia process works,[142] repeated application of the process will approach neutrality and accuracy. It follows that a good way to establish editors' relative neutrality is to examine their history of involvement in the community process, and particularly their voting history:
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Using this data we can easily calculate the percentage of each editor's votes that accorded with (or diverged from) the consensus, as a measure of their neutrality: the more frequently an editor voted with the consensus, the more neutral they are assumed to be. Adjusting for discussions where the impact of the proposal was favorable to the OP regardless of the formal tally (namely RfC: Does a source support a categorical statement and AfD: Heaven for the nobles), we arrive at the following results:
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
Current word length: 471; diff count: 21.
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)
VM's history (Arbcom)
On 3 November 2010, Volunteer Marek requested [164] and was granted [165] an account rename citing personal privacy. [166]
Party to WP:EEML
In Eastern European mailing list, after being opened by motion, [167] Volunteer Marek was added as a party. [168]
This ultimately led to a finding of fact, an admonishment and a sanction against the editor (the admonishment was to all participants). [169]
Sanction rescinded
On 21 June 2010, the committee removed its previous sanction against the editor. [170]
This was after a previous motion to amend the case that narrowed the topic ban having been enacted. [171]
Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz's history
This is only a partial account of Icewhiz's history with processes related to VM and topics related to Eastern Europe.
3RR request
On 29 June 2018, Icewhiz filed a report against Volunteer Marek. [172] It was closed with a note to seek dispute resolution in the future. [173]
Both topic banned for battleground
An AE request was filed by Icewhiz. [174] This request was m=ade after a then-recent AE filling against Icewhiz. [175]
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
. [176]
Amendment request (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. [177] It was closed with no action. [178]
Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Closing
A lot has been said... [179] [180] going back at least a year. [181] [182] [183] [184]
I am unable to support further assertions within the word limit.
I cleaned this up just a bit for better navigation. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Evidence presented by MyMoloboaccount
Current word length: 821 (limit: 500); diff count: 18. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.
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"[185]
It's hard not to see this response as either WP:Bait or attempt to inflame the discussion.
- In here[186] Icewhiz removes information about Polish rescue of Jews under the title "remove Polish rescue myth"
- [187]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[188].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[189].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?[191]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: [193] An order in which ethnic Poles were targetted for executions(and were majority victims)-Icewhiz removes Poles and replaces it with "people".
- Here[194]
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 [195] 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[196].
- "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.
- [197]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.
- [198]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[199] 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[200], and claimed that lead about this terrorist organization should have views "of those who justify it"[201]--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
Current word length: 564; diff count: 1.
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 Synagogues of Kraków, 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 P-J history infographics like a map of the Holocaust in Poland and uploaded images like File:Stanislawów Synagogue.jpg or File:Słonim Ghetto burning (1942-06-29).jpg, and used PhotoShop skills to improve quality of images like File:Jewish man humiliated and tortured by German policemen in Tarnów ghetto.jpg
He also got the Treblinka extermination camp to GA.
To accuse him of antisemitism is absurd.
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. Even now, he is listed in the Top 3000 most active Wikipedians by edit count. His retirement is a clear loss to the project, and to the content area of the P-J history.
Rebuttal
I am not a party to this, but since my name is presented in "evidence" with some diffs:
- Barczewo/restitution/Krzyzanowski: edit summaries (or the content of the talk page post) are self-explanatory. What's the problem? Unless, of course, the problem is that reverting Icewhiz is "a crime".
- tag-teaming: seriously? Informing editors about WP:ENABLEEMAIL is "a crime"? For the record, I have exchanged some emails with Icewhiz himself. Maybe someone would like to accuse the two of us of improper collusion and such?
- followed by two or three examples of me and VM editing the same page. Errr. You can probably find thousands. We have similar interests. I could present hundreds of cases where Icewhiz and Francois have edited the same topic and supported one another, too. Like this AfD. Do I thing anything wrong with? Of course not. Tag teaming is only a problem if it is related to bypassing 3RR or manipulating voting. The only problematic thing that is happening is the erosion of AGF due to spurious accusations like those.
{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
Current word length: 131; diff count: 0.
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
Current word length: 1620 (limit: 1000); diff count: 7. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.
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 [202]
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 [203] was of a sockpuppet of indef banned user [204], 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)
- Addendum: Apparently, now my rebuttals to Icewhiz are being used as "evidence". Under his "ASPERSIONS" sections he says: "Socking: [19], [20],[21]", which are three accusations of sock puppetry I made. For starters, this makes it appear as if I'm accusing Icewhiz of sockpuppetry. I'm not.
- The second diff is my comment right above which begins with "Another one. Icewhiz says..." So me explaining that an IP user whom I reverted was a sock puppet of an indef banned user is now "evidence" against me. FFS, *it was* a sock puppet of an indef banned user User:Kaiser von Europa. Why is me trying to explain things being turned against me? Icewhiz. Why not actually listen here and say "oh ok, that was an indef banned user with a history of pushing neo-Nazi POV so I get it why you reverted" and strike your accusations? Why are you doubling down instead? Why are you trying to portray this as some nefarious edit on my part?
- The first diff from Icewhiz is the same thing. It's me reiterating that I reverted a sock puppet of a banned user . Icewhis knows this by now. This is straight up WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. How many times do I have to explain this? Why is Icewhiz repeating the attack EVEN AFTER it's been explained to him multiple times that the revert was a WP:BANREVERT?
- The third diff is me accusing another IP user on another user's talk page - not Icewhiz, he was actually nowhere near it - of being a sock puppet of indef'd banned User:Hidden Tempo. Which it was. Ask User:Bishonen. Or look at the sub-reddit comment section where the Hidden Tempo's account wrote the exact same damn thing as on Sir Joseph's talk page (it is of interest who the other people commenting, doxxing and advocating real life harassment of myself in that reddit thread were and how they match u with existing Wikipedia accounts but that part would indeed be speculation).
- None of these actually have anything to do with the disputes between Icewhiz and myself. None of these diffs actually show anything problematic. Yes indeed, there are indef'd users busy sock puppeting on Wikipedia. Surprise surprise! WHY is Icewhiz bringing this up in this AbrCom case? What does it have to do with anything? Answer: he's desperately trying to throw any mud and accusations my way no matter how ridiculous and absurd, hoping something sticks. That is the definition of bad faith, WP:GAME and WP:TENDENTIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Addendum: Apparently, now my rebuttals to Icewhiz are being used as "evidence". Under his "ASPERSIONS" sections he says: "Socking: [19], [20],[21]", which are three accusations of sock puppetry I made. For starters, this makes it appear as if I'm accusing Icewhiz of sockpuppetry. I'm not.
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)
Francois Robere's table
Ok, as someone who works with data professionally, I just got to say: this table is silly. EVEN IF you AGF Francois that he filled in the table accurately there's the obvious problem of WP:CHERRY-picking and non-random sampling. These are not all the discussions/RfCs etc. that have been held in this topic area in the past two years. FR seems to have basically just gone through and made sure to pick out mostly those discussions where he voted in accordance with closure. And this isn't just my bad faith talking. FR does have a history of falsely claiming consensus for his edits. For example here (at the time the split was about 50/50, maybe even leaning against FR's "side", or here (FR pretends that only myself and Piotrus were for inclusion, in fact there were at least two other editors) and then again here (at this point I think his claim of "obvious consensus" was just taunting designed to provoke because if anything was "obvious" at this point, it was the clear lack of consensus either way).
But since here we're suppose to evaluate the evidence presented, let's NOT assume that he filled in the table accurately. Let's actually do some fact checking. I'm not gonna check every single user he has in there but I'll check myself and him. And in the very first line we see misrepresentation. This is the discussion FR is referencing. The question was "does source support statement". FR voted No. I voted Yes. RfC was closed as "moot" since other sources have been added. FR counts this as against me and in favor of himself. That's clearly manipulative. It should either NOT be counted at all (as "moot" suggests) or counted for me and against him, since at the end of the day, the sentence was included.
And then there is inclusion of "trivial" discussions which were closed with WP:SNOW such as this one. This appears to be a way to "pad" the "agreement with closure" results in FR's favor. Personally, when I see a discussion where the outcome is pretty much predetermined cuz WP:SNOW, I don't see a point in voting for it. So FR adds himself a few "wins" by including such discussions. If this table was honest, then he'd exclude essentially non-controversial discussions such as these.
The calculations in the lower table are also off. For myself, I count 5 out of 7 instances of agreement with the closure (71.4%) or 4 out of 6 (66.66%) if we don't count the first listed discussion at all. For FR I count either 8 out of 13 (61.5%) if we count first discussion or 8 out of 12 (66.66%) if we don't. So effectively our numbers are about the same, or even, mine are possibly higher.
If you really want me to, I can calculate the standard errors and confidence intervals here and do a t test to show that statistically speaking our %'s are basically the same, but really, with non-random sampling and such a low N (13 at best) it's kind of meaningless. As is FR's whole table.
So basically, EVEN WITH cherry picked data, FR still has to do some sneaky data manipulation and massaging to get the conclusion he wants. This is really the case of "lies, damned lies and statistics".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Tatzref
Current word length: 440; diff count: 0.
- 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
Current word length: 593 (limit: 500); diff count: 3. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.
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
Current word length: 330; diff count: 38.
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".[206] 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: [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214]
Also: [215] (Ewa Kurek), [216] (Nasz Dziennik).
Tatzref added WP:PUFFERY to Canadian Polish Congress - [217][218] - 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 [219][220][221] (reliable sources on enwiki removed by Volunteer Marek), was removed by User:Pinkbeast: [222]. Icewhiz then reintroduced it: [223], 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: [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232]. Also AE: [233], [234], [235], [236], [237].
Evidence presented by Starship.paint
Current word length: 119; diff count: 2.
Inaccurate statement by Icewhiz
[238] (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. [239]. 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
Current word length: 0; diff count: 0.
{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.