My very best wishes (talk | contribs) →Statement by My very best wishes: indeed, I did not notice |
My very best wishes (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 249:
The edit by GizzyCatBella [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stawiski&diff=847297861&oldid=846042386] (in the comment by Sandstein below) was apparently only the first in the series of edits by GizzyCatBella who wanted to create an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stawiski&type=revision&diff=847309403&oldid=847298177 entirely different version], as follows from their edits made ''before'' the submission of this request by Icewhiz. Therefore, making any sanctions on the basis of this diff (or any other intermediate edits by GizzyCatBella) seems to be unjustified.
It also appears that Icewhiz submitted this report at the very moment when GizzyCatBella was working to fix the content after the objections by Icewhiz on the article talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stawiski]. This is clearly a battleground behavior by Icewhiz, in my opinion. He may or may not be right about sources used ''in the initial edit'' by GizzyCatBella, but he had to wait until GizzyCatBella completes their editing and discuss on the talk page any possible disagreements about ''new version'' prior to submitting this request.
Moreover, even the initial edit/revert by GizzyCatBella [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stawiski&diff=847297861&oldid=846042386], does not strike me as something deserving a topic ban or an "antisemitic propaganda". The edit does not removes anything about the atrocities by Nazi. It only inserts some info about the previous Soviet occupation, followed by the atrocities by Nazi, i.e. in chronological order. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 19:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 22:46, 24 June 2018
Paul Siebert
No action. Sandstein 07:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Paul Siebert
I was very reluctant to submit this request and thought it might be avoided. Therefore, prior to filing any requests, I tried to explain to Paul that his editing was problematic (whole thread), but he responded with offenses (diffs #5, #6, "that's a lie", "you continue to pretend"). Moreover, he continued doing the same (for example, diffs #1, #2 and #9). All these discussions were related to Eastern Europe. In addition, Paul produces very long and fruitless discussions on article talk pages and refuses to accept consensus or the lack of consensus. For example, speaking about "Black Book", he posted this question a few years ago. He recently re-posted it again [19]. He received no support, but still continue defaming the author of the book on WP pages (diffs #1 and #2). I do not know if his sources to discredit Stéphane Courtois are cherry-picked or just random, however they do not support the assertion by Paul that the notable academic has been involved in a scientific misconduct. I believe it is a BLP violation and WP:OR by Paul. @Woogie10w. I am not surprised you do not want edit this subject. I think one problem is that Paul clearly exhibits an WP:TE editing pattern on the talk page (diffs #1, #2, #10, and #12; #9 was also related to this page). He also starts multiple threads trying to discredit the "Black Book of Communism", which is probably one of the best academic RS on the subject of this page. He does it over and over again: [20],[21],[22],[23]. And he continue doing the same on this AE page - see his response below [24]. @Paul Siebert. "Troll" again [25]? I do not find your arguments convincing, sorry.
@TTAAC. In the first chapter of Black Book Courtois provides his own numbers of victims, which are not based on the chapters by Margolin and Werth, and he does not tell these numbers are based on their chapters. Therefore, the numbers must be explicitly attributed to Courtois. That is what I did in this edit. For some reasons Paul called this my edit "POV pushing" (link #12; at the bottom of the diff he tells I made "misleading edit summary" in this edit. Wrong. It was correct edit summary and good edit.).
Discussion concerning Paul SiebertStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Paul SiebertI have to skip the most ridiculous accusations because of space limitations. 1. Re: Forgery etc: reliable sources say that Courtois "manipulated"[1] or "deliberately inflated"[2] some figures, which he then used as a proof for his theory. A beginning if the discussion of this question can be found here, all diffs cannot be provided because there were a lot of them). Manipulation of figures by Courtois lead to a serious conflict between Courtois and his co-authors:[3] Two main contributors of this book (Werth and Margolin) claimed that Courtois took the figures produced by them and produced the figures that were considerably inflated as compared to the original data. Such manipulation is not necessarily tantamount to forgery, but it is very close. That is exactly what I say ("it seems Courtois simply forged his figures"), and a well documented public scandal over this story demonstrates that my statement was hardly an exaggeration. 2. redundant 3. Re: "if a person behaves as a troll, then it is reasonable to conclude they are a troll": To explain this, I need to briefly describe a content dispute in a formal way. Durin a discussion, I said: "I agree that the facts A and B did occur. However, I disagree that C follows from A and B. [4] MVBW twisted my words, and claimed "You admitted that A and B did occur, which mean you yourself agreed with C". To me, such behaviour is a typical trolling. 4. Re: "You cannot pretend you are an educated and skillful person..." Truncation completely changed the meaning of this sentence. A brief summary of my full post is: "You are smarter than the posts you make, please, return to a rational discussion". (MVBW is a scientist who is supposed to be familiar with the criteria applied to scientific publications and good articles). 5. Re: "This is an unsubstantiated accusation of bad faith" (partially addressed above (#4)). The whole discussion can be seen here. Obviously:
6. Re: This diff see above. 7. Re: "last phrase at the bottom of the diff". A key point here is that the exact translation of the word "расстрелять" (that means not "execution" (a general term), but "shooting").[5] Obviously, if one sees this my phrase taken out of context, it looks somewhat rude. However, taking into account that, as a rule, any discussion with MVBW makes several rounds where all arguments are being repeated ad nauseum, some degree of irritation is quite understabdable. 8. Re: "if you see no anti-Semitism in these Solzhenitsyn's words, that tells something about you" retrospectively, I see that it was just misunderstanding. I thought we were discussing this statement,[6] whereas that book described the same subject in two different chapters, and the wording in another chapter was less anti-Semitic. 9. Re: "Long political rant" Actually, it was a friendly discussion between Woogie10w and me on our talk pages, where Woogie10w and I disclosed some personal information about our ancestors. I feel very uncomfortable that a third person wedged into this discussion, and I am not intended to discuss the details here. Although Woogie10w and I interact very rarely, I think he is a very kind and interesting person, and I am glad he thinks the same about me. Since I believe off-Wiki communication is something we should avoid, my email is disabled, so a talk page dialogue was the only way to communicate with Woogie10w. In my opinion, MVBW's behaviour in this particular case was profoundly dishonest. 10. Re: "accusing Collect of deliberately violating a policy" Don't have space to discuss this unrelated story. 11. Re: "misleading edit summary" In reality, (MVWB was acting against talk page consensus (see the "War breaks out in Europe; a pretext for a Soviet invasion" section). 12. Re: "a thread started by Paul on article talk page" This thread must be read in full from the beginning to the final TFD's post. It is a representative example of MVBW's behaviour. I just wanted to add that although I know MVBW since very early times (starting from his conflict with another user, which gave a start to the WP:EEML story, when MVBW was editing under the currently deleted account "Biophys"), I still assumed MVBW's good faith until June 2018. Regrettably, after this case, I have no possibility to assume it any more. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC) References
Statement by GPRamirez5I regret that I don't have more time to write testimony and assemble evidence right now, but I stand by the ANI case I brought against MVBW, and I second everything that has been said here in Paul Siebert's defense. GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by (--Woogie10w (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC))I got involved in this discussion about Mass Killing under Communist regimes and gave up. The discussion degenerated into a gigantic POV storm because the editors, including myself, were not discussing the source Courtois. When I tried to discuss the various sources related to the topic I was ignored. The editors I interacted with constantly argued based on their own POV rather than citing reliable sources. I suspect that the editors were acting in good faith but were not familiar the topic and the sources. In my case I made the big mistake of wasting my time engaging a long winded discussion that involved my own POV, I realized my mistake and opted out of the discussion. Paul was acting in good faith and really needs to base his arguments on reliable sources that can be verified. I have hard copies of the sources and am willing to work with editors who want to improve the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by TheTimesAreAChangingTo give context to Paul Siebert's (admittedly unnecessarily inflammatory) "forgery" accusation against Courtois, it should be noted that Courtois authored the introduction to the Black Book, in which he purported to summarize the conclusions of the book's various contributors—notably Nicolas Werth, author of the chapters on the Soviet Union, and Jean-Louis Margolin, author of the chapters on China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. (The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia account for the great majority of all mass killings under communist regimes.) In the introduction, Courtois claimed that approximately 100 million individuals died as a result of communist regimes during the 20th century, compared to the roughly 25 million victims of Nazi Germany. To reach this total, Courtois cited estimates of the death toll attributable to communism in specific countries; for example, Courtois gave the figures of 65 million deaths in China, 20 million deaths in the Soviet Union, and 1 million deaths in Vietnam. Werth and Margolin, however, used somewhat lower and more speculative numbers for China and the Soviet Union, and Margolin (pp. 565–575) concluded only that North Vietnam's land reform was accompanied by Side comment by SMcCandlishAn obvious part of the problem here is that the entire Mass killings under Communist regimes page is basically a giant multi-pronged WP:Coatrack. These are not all one topic, and putting them together is a WP:POV and WP:OR exercise, verging on propaganda. These should be split into separate articles on each government (and should not use the loaded word "regime", per MOS:WTW). I think that would go a long way to defusing conflict; a pseudo-encyclopedic article like this a magnet for PoV-pushing in both directions. And don't capitalize "communist", per MOS:ISMCAPS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer MarekI have some mixed thoughts on the issue of MVBW and Paul Siebert, but as concerns this edit summary by GPRamirez5 I believe that's what's usually called "casting WP:ASPERSIONS". You can't make allegations like that against another editor without solid evidence, especially in an edit summary (which means it's impossible to strike or undue the comments).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by CollectI note my name has appeared above. My goal would be a short article on the topic of "Noncombatant deaths attributed to communist regimes" as is clear on the talk page. I note that Paul seems to have made a substantial number of contributions to the talk page, and a substantial amount of verbiage. Some of that verbiage is, per Paul, self-attributed to English not being his first language, [30] [31] but other example indicate that he feels exceedingly strongly on the topic, to the extent of accusing others of lying, violating Wikipedia policy, and more, and some of his charges are poorly worded or unsupportable. I also note that an IP has posted on his talk page aspersions about some editors here. [32] Paul has greatly misapprehended my positions and made charges about me which are ill-worded, inapt, and objectionable. (see above diffs) I did not issue a complaint mainly because in his large number of edits to the article talk page (I suggest looking at the quantity and length of such edits might be useful), he has iterated such charges for a long time now. Thus I ask that the complaint be viewed as being of a serious nature, devolving on the Wikipedia principles of affording all editors due respect, and not simply lashing out at them. IMHO, it would not hurt Paul to have a vacation from the article in question, though. Say, a month or so? Collect (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93SMcCandlish's assessment is quite correct. The page has been constructed in a manner that does not represent consensus among sources, and this construction itself is then used to exclude and/or stonewall any changes to the sources. It is completely unsurprising that tempers are getting frayed. I've taken Paul to task myself over his tendency to open numerous and lengthy discussions, but that's hardly a blockable offense, and I would concur with Sandstein's assessment of this report. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Paul Siebert
|
GizzyCatBella
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning GizzyCatBella
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions, specifically not complying with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines in regards to Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - due to entering information citing a source, which does not appear in the source (or in any reliable source).
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Revision as of 09:12, 24 June 2018 revert to 27 Aug 2017 version.
- Revision as of 09:15, 24 June 2018 revert challenged as "gross misrepresentation of sources" + talk page Revision as of 09:18, 24 June 2018 post explaining the problem of misrepresentation.
- Revision as of 09:20, 24 June 2018 - re-revert to August 2017 version (+breaking cutting out infobox of the article - resulting in a -4 byte diff - but the article body. was a simple re-revert.
- Revision as of 09:30, 24 June 2018 + Revision as of 10:08, 24 June 2018 - refused request to self-revert.
- User made some additional edits after this - but did not self-revert, and article continues to contain serious misrepresentations which are strongly defamatory.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Revision as of 14:44, 26 April 2018 - blocked 72 hours for edit-warring in EE.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018 alerted + previous AE discussions.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is beyond not following WP:BRD, and previous conduct on this article (by a different user handle) has been covered outside of Wikipedia here - by Morris S. Whitcup.
This is the second re-revert - diff. This version contains a number of sentences sourced to Rossino. Rossino, however contains a single sentence mentioning Stawiki - After passing through Stawiski on 23 June, Radziłów and Jedwabne on 24 June, and Osowiec on 25 June, these units moved to the north and east of Białystok.
. No Jewish communists. No Ethnic Polish families being rounded up by Jews. No Poles hiding in the forest (~6 emerging from the forest to join the Nazis in killing Jews).Other sources have been misrepresented as well. This version is in WP:HOAX territory - conveying Jewish repressions of Poles, and a German massacre of Jews (just ~6 Poles joining in) - as opposed to Poles massacring Jews which is what RS report.
Following more editing - 11:13, 24 June 2018 contains the following misrepresentations:
During the Invasion of Poland in September 1939, Stawiski was ...administration was abolished and replaced with local communists.[5]
- Cites Rossino - not in cited source.The Soviet terror lingered until the Germans returned ... .[6]
- citing The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before and During the Holocaust: Seredina-Buda-Z - which does not say "Soviet terror" - it does say "reign of terror with active Polish participation" in relation to the month long German occupation in 1939 (the Soviet/Polish border was adjusted after the military offensive).instigated is also somewhat inaccurate.The the Germans set the Great Synagogue on fire.[7]
citing a yizkor book (this is more of a PRIMARY source). This account does not appear in the source. The Yizkor book does not contain a synagouge burning account in August. It does contain one for June 1941, and for 1942.Some 60 Jews remained, mainly skilled workers and their families, who were confined to a ghetto. On 2 November 1942, the ghetto was closed and its occupants were transferred to Łomża Ghetto, and from there sent to Auschwitz extermination camp and Treblinka extermination camp.[8]
- sourced to a dead link on virtual shtetl (which is not a RS AFAICT - user generated Wiki) The details do mostly match the Jewish life Encyclopedia (with Łomża instead of Bougusze, and Treblinka vs. Treblinka/Auschwitz).The fate of the Jews of Stawiski was similar... thus linking perpetrators and victims.
sourced to this - The book is academic, but is a collection of translated non-academic newspaper reports (the purpose is covering the media discourse) - not a good source. It does not say what we are citing (nor do other mentions of Stawiki in this collection) - no "Stawiski a day earlier thus linking perpetrators and victims".
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
notified.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Additional comments by Icewhiz
- @Ealdgyth: - note Rossino discusses events elsewhere (Eastern Poland as a whole, as well as various examples from various towns) - as you noted, even these generalized stmts (and examples from other towns) do not support the text. However - it is even worse as Rossino doesn't discuss events in Stawiski as all (except for Wehrmacht movements in Barbarossa (and not the more relevant Einsatzgruppen that followed)) - the only thing Rossino says of Stawiski is that the German forces passed through on 23 June (some two weeks prior to the massacre - as a general historical note - this left these backwater towns in a state of lawlessness - a void between Soviet rule and the Nazis fully asserting their administration in the following 1-2 months).Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Text in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 20:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by GizzyCatBella
Statement preparation in progress (please allow me some extra time to finish because I’m really occupied today with my grandkids) Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Ealdgyth
There is definitely some misuse/misrepresentation of sources in this edit by GCB. The edit makes the statement "Ethnic Polish families were being rounded up by newly formed Jewish militia" and sources it to this article (?). The closest thing I can find in the source that discusses the deportations of Poles is the paragraph starting "Yet arrest by the NKVD was not the only means of repression.." but that paragraph does not support the information in the article. First - it is discussing the deportations that took place throughout the period of Soviet rule. Second, it notes that Poles made up 60% of the deportees in the area - so a sweeping statement that "ethnic Poles" without qualifying that other ethnicities were also deported is incorrect based on the source. Further ... no mention in the paragraph mentions "Jewish militia" at all. Lastly, the deportations from the Lomza and Bialystok areas took place in 1941, not in 1939 as implied by the placement of the sourced sentence. The other possible paragraph in the source that is meant to support this statement starts "Other leading scholars.." but this doesn't support this statement either - as it states "Jewish militiamen helped NKVD agents send local Poles into exile" first - this is a quote from Dov Levin, and second it doesn't say that the Jewish militia was the only force that sent people into exile. The source also notes in the next paragraph some reasons why Jews may have been over-represented in the Soviet occupation administration and concludes "It seems then that the outburst of Polish anti-Semitism in reaction to the arrival of German forces was largely based on a stereotype of the "Jewish-Communist" that was shared by anti-Semites across Europe."... which definitely is not reflected in the use made of this source in the article.
The same source is used to source "Some Poles, who emerged from their forest hideaways, including prisoners released by the Nazis from the NKVD prisons" - but there is not a single mention of the word "prisoners" in the source article, and the four mentions of "prison" do not support this at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- VM... I did read the source. In fact, I've quoted the very same sentence above - "Jewish militamen helped NKVD agents send local Poles into exile" - this statement is not strong enough to support a sentence that says "Ethnic Polish families were being rounded up by newly formed Jewish militia." NOthing there is about "newly formed" ... and the sentence baldly states that that militiamen did the rounding up - when the source says that the militiamen HELPED the NKVD agents send local Poles into exile. That's misrepresentation in my book... taking a "X helped Y" and turning it into "X did". Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- And if the source says "Musiał found that in many cases Jewish militia members directly participated in mass arrests and deportation actions." ... this cant be used to source that the militia in Stawiski did the deportations without Musial actually saying that the militia in Stawiski deported Poles. The source is making a generalized statement that cannot be used to source a specific statement in an article about a specific location without the source directly stating that it took place in that location. Since the first sentence of the paragraph added at Stawiski says "Upon the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland in 1939, the local administration was abolished by the Soviet NKVD and replaced with Jewish communists who declared Soviet allegiance." The statement is obviously meant to apply to the local adminstration of Stawiski (which is the subject of the article, right?) unless it's explicitly stated that it applies to some other administration. But if it applies to some other administration - what's it doing in an article on a local community? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Text in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 20:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek
@Sandstein: (and User:Ealdgyth) - how are you guys missing it? Just do a search for "militia". "Musiał found that in many cases Jewish militia members directly participated in mass arrests and deportation actions. " and "Dov Levin has similarly concluded "the labeling of the Soviet administration as a 'Jewish regime' became widespread when Jewish militiamen helped NKVD agents send local Poles into exile."", and " In eastern Poland, the vision of Jews greeting the Red Army, and in isolated cases of Jews in militia uniform assisting the NKVD, appeared to bear out the deepest suspicions of a nefarious Jewish-Bolshevik alliance.". The last one doesn't say it was the case, but the first two sentences do.
You can question the reliability of the source but that's a content dispute issue and since this has been in the article for some time there's nothing wrong with GCB restoring a previous stable version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
And whoa, Sandstein and Blade - you guys didn't read a source carefully and you go and accuse an editor of anti-semitism???? What the fuck??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: - um, Blade, did you actually read the source that Icewhiz and Sandstein are discussing? Here it is again. Note that the text is not supported just by Polish historians, but also by Jewish ones, such as Yitzhak Arad, Dov Levin and Jan Gross.
Are you guys seriously proposing to ban a user because you lot couldn't be arsed to actually a read a source under discussion? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC) @Ealdgyth - your point about "helped to round up" vs. "rounded up" is a fair one. And the wording should reflect that. But that's miles from saying that GZB was "spreading anti-semitic propaganda", since there is basis for what they wrote in the source. Likewise, the source is about "small towns west of Białystok", which, to anyone familiar with the geography pretty much means Stawiski - GZB probably just assumed this familiarity. This isn't good either, but again, it's not some gross misrepresentation.
Also, as has already been pointed out, GZB was restoring a stable version from August 2017 in response to several of Icewhiz's edits (which removed relevant sourced material). If you want to blame somebody for that text, then blame whoever put it in [33], which was this guy.
- Text in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 20:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Re Sandstain's removal of my comments - goddamit, just read the freakin' source, and look at the freakin' edit history of that article before you go accusing editors of anti-semitism! You owe them at least that much! GizzyCatBella REMOVED the info you bring up in statement herself, just minutes later. All she was restore an older version of the article to work off of. And the stuff on the Jewish militia - which is no longer in the article BECAUSE Gizzy removed it - is in fact in the source! Sandstein you need to strike that odious and false WP:ASPERSION.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
Tending toward Volunteer Marek's interpretation. Citing a source that's critical of some group action that happened to have involved Jews, and which even Jewish writers also cite, doesn't make an editor an anti-Semite, but someone doing their editorial "job". While I have some minor involvement in the broader topic area, about a year or two ago (esp. about the Polish army of the era), I don't know enough about the subject and the real-world conflicts between people researching it to know whether this is aspect of the "job" is being done well. But the knee-jerk rush to T-ban and indef is not supportable, and is a good example why AE (and ArbCom) have to stay out of content disputes. This isn't addressing user behavior, it's a half-assed decision that some sources in a content dispute are preferable to some other sources in it (which is what most content disputes boil down to). I agree with Ealdgyth that GizzyCatBella appears to have engaged in accidentally restored some OR (namely novel interpretation and perhaps synthesis), but that's also a content dispute matter. Icewhiz's complaint is firmly in the same territory; it's almost entirely predicated on source reliability analysis and dispute; this is something for the article talk page, not AE, especially given that GCB didn't write this material at all, but simply restored it with the sources for it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Re Sandstein's "I'm not interested in ..." – Yeah, yeah, we know. Fortunately, AE is open to anyone's input, the input of non-partisans is frequently helpful (and already has been in this case), and AE isn't owned by one particular admin. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes
The edit by GizzyCatBella [34] (in the comment by Sandstein below) was apparently only the first in the series of edits by GizzyCatBella who wanted to create an entirely different version, as follows from their edits made before the submission of this request by Icewhiz. Therefore, making any sanctions on the basis of this diff (or any other intermediate edits by GizzyCatBella) seems to be unjustified.
It also appears that Icewhiz submitted this report at the very moment when GizzyCatBella was working to fix the content after the objections by Icewhiz on the article talk page [35]. This is clearly a battleground behavior by Icewhiz, in my opinion. He may or may not be right about sources used in the initial edit by GizzyCatBella, but he had to wait until GizzyCatBella completes their editing and discuss on the talk page any possible disagreements about new version prior to submitting this request.
Moreover, even the initial edit/revert by GizzyCatBella [36], does not strike me as something deserving a topic ban or an "antisemitic propaganda". The edit does not removes anything about the atrocities by Nazi. It only inserts some info about the previous Soviet occupation, followed by the atrocities by Nazi, i.e. in chronological order. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MyMoloboaccount
GizzyCatBella didn't add the disputed information as some claim, he restored a previous version of the article that somebody else added.I also note that he politely asked Icewhiz to wait and let him finish the articlethis hostile attitude and threats??? Please stop. Will you please let me work on it? I started already and I would really welcome your input and help. Can you work with me to improve the article please?.He then removed unfounded allegationsis a communist, so ethnicity removed unless a secondary source found confirming ethnicity of local communist. But I don't think it is crucial anyway. Please read the edits carefully, GizzyCatBella actually agreed with Icewhiz and removed what he was disputing.
To sum it up.
- GCB restored previous version of article to start from scratch.
- GCB didn't add any disputed information as alleged.
- GCB asked Icewhiz to work with him on improving the article
- GCB removed allegations about Jewish ethnicity of NKVD militia.
Why is this request in the first place, if GCB actually agreed with Icewhiz and removed this information?
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, it seems Icewhiz falsified a source himself on the similar issue in a different subject, claiming that villagers massacred by Jewish-Partisant unit were supposedly hunting down Jews [37] However I checked the source and there is nothing about Naliboki village on page 280.There is mention about Jewish partisants raids in Naliboki Forest on page 283 and their attacks against local population which authors show as example of change from victim to perpetrator role.Naliboki village and Naliboki forest are two different locations. If we are dealing here with falsifying sources than perhaps this can be looked as well by admins. To make it easier, I even uploaded a screenshot from the source in question showing that there is nothing about Naliboki village on page 280[38].If admins believe this is not the place for this, that is ok with me, I can ask about this in other thread as there is additional information I would like to point out.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning GizzyCatBella
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
All right. My first instinct was to decline action as a content dispute. But some of these edits by GizzyCatBella appear, at first glance, very dubious. In [39], GizzyCatBella removes an apparently reliably sourced mention of an anti-Jewish pogrom in WWII Poland. Instead, GizzyCatBella ascribes a 1939 deportation of "ethnic Polish families" to "Jewish communists" and "Jewish militia". I'm by no means knowledgeable about the history of this place and period, but this strikes me as very surprising to say the least, and would need very good sourcing. Instead, Icewhiz appears to be correct that Rossino, the source cited by GizzyCatBella (however reliable it may be - a web archive of a blog copy of a copyvio?) does not appear to mention anything of the sort. On the basis of this first assessment, I suspect that GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources; all in violation of any number of policies. Unless GizzyCatBella has a really good explanation for this, I can't see any other outcome but a long block and a topic ban. Sandstein 13:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for a statement by GizzyCatBella. It is they who need to explain their editing. I'm not interested in the opinion of anybody except the parties and uninvolved administrators. Sandstein 20:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. An indefinite topic ban for sure, and unless there are other really good contributions elsewhere that I'm not seeing a very long or indefinite block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your comments on my reading comprehension are duly noted, thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)