Statement by Softlavender[edit]

I am completely uninvolved. Neither AE nor ArbCom seem to me to be currently appropriate venues for this. The appropriate venue would be ANI, so all efforts at resolution have not been attempted, and therefore I recommend that ArbCom decline the case. The case belongs at ANI, and if the diffs check out more or less as Icewhiz claims, then the appropriate remedy or remedies are rather simple: A topic ban of VM (and possibly the other two editors) from Poland-Holocaust, and possibly also a one-way IBan with Icewhiz (or at least a final warning not to stalk him). And sanctions on the other two editors as appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth[edit]

I'm just going to link to my statement from a month and a half ago - here for diffs and documentation. For a more recent problem - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? where just trying to get basic information about a query takes several requests that get drowned out by the fighting between involved editors. I could bring more (plenty more) diffs, but I'll end with my statement from that clarification request:

"It's not just the troubling/sloppy sourcing that's occurring (and these are likely the tip of the iceberg), it's the constant battleground mentality that affects most editors in this area. One person adds something that's sloppily sourced, the other side reverts and screams bloody murder on the talk page, but then that second side adds something else that's also sloppily sourced and then the first side starts screaming bloody murder. And everything is accompanied by endless reverts ... there is not any way for third party editors who aren't invested in the conflict to actually contribute for any length of time because it's just so dreadfully draining. 1RR doesn't seem to help, because there are multiple editors on each "side" so ... the reverts just roll in and people who aren't on a side just give up and walk away - I've done it often enough." Ealdgyth - Talk 22:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilkTork, yes, that’s also related. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's more to this complex conflict than just Icewhiz and VM but... I'm right in the middle of moving and just do not have the time to devote to digging up diffs and dealing with it. The behavior on display here in this request is just an example of what happens when a conflict arises in the area - it rapidly becomes a battleground. All that does is drive editors like myself (who are not Polish or Jewish and who have at least some passing familiarity with the sources and historical methods) right out of editing in the area. I really doubt that ANI will be of any help, but I can't dredge up the time to find the diffs and lay out the reasons for accepting this beyond what I've posted above. Look at the RS noticeboard discussion and the ANI, and you'll see that it's not just the two named editors above, but a whole host of editors, some of them probably socks of banned editors, some of them SPAs, some of them definitely here to push a narrative that's not mainstream. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And ... @Tatzref ... it's not "Laurence Weinbaum ... his essay in The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust (New York University Press, 2000) ". The CORRECT citation is the Laurence Weinbaum (2000). "Defrosting History: the Restitution of Jewish Property in Eastern Europe". In Avi Becker (ed.). The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust. New York University Press. pp. 83–110.. The essay is entitled "Defrosting History: the Restitution of Jewish Property in Eastern Europe" and the whole collected work is titled The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust. (This is not the first time this has been pointed out to Tatzref). And it was reviewed here without any major issues. My own opinion on the constant sloppy referencing is that too many editors are relying on google and not actually reading the whole work. (I'm just going to leave the whole "but the mouthpiece of the World Jewish Congress, an organization with an aggressive restitution agenda" aside as restitution claims are only part of the WJC's remit) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to point out an old ArbCom case that dealt with similar issues of accusations of source distortion - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG. That might be a good guide - where there was no determination made about what the articles would contain, but the behavior of the editors in regards to sourcing was scrutinized. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

Icewhiz tells that many sources have been misrepresented, like here (edit summary). No, after looking at the sources (I checked only a couple of cases though), it appears there is no evidence that anyone misrepresented anything on purpose, including even edits by banned and inactive contributors.

Furthermore, Icewhiz claims MOS:ETHNICITIY (edit summary), but instead of simply removing "Jewish" (which I think would be reasonable), removes info that the person was involved in "in Stalinist regime show trials of the 1950s" and implicated in the arrests and executions. She is known as a state prosecutor during these Kangaroo courts if I understand correctly. That info was well sourced on the page. Looking more (this series of edits [37],[38],[39],[40],[41], [42][43],[44],[45],[46]), it appears that Icewhiz removes sourced information about political repression of Polish population by the Polish communist regime and Soviet NKVD. Why? He tells it was "just" ethnic cleansing. Not according to many academic RS [47], [48]. But he is probably just playing a game to provoke Polish users to follow his edits, so he can cry wolf (aka wikistalking and tag-teaming) [49] when it comes to submitting his WP:AE report or the arbitration request. No, as long as contributors work to improve content, this is not tag-teaming and wikistalking, but should be viewed as a productive collaboration.

Further, Icewhiz said this (“a redline conduct issue”) meaning this edit by VM. What? It was written: "a Polish officer ... of the Polish People's Republic." VM removed one of the "Polish". That's fine. But somehow Icewhiz perceived this edit as "a redline conduct issue" because Morel "happened to be Jewish".

In any event, this is actually a disagreement on multiple pages between Icewhiz and several other people (excluding SPA and occasional contributors). If you remove Icewhiz from this subject area, the conflict will stop (the conflicts started when Icewhiz joined this subject area). If you remove VM, nothing will change except having one good contributor less. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by El_C[edit]

I'm the one who closed the AE request. I am also the only admin who made attempts at addressing the request, feeling it was a 50-50 about whether this should go to Arbitration, instead. The other three admins did not, however, share such reservations, with all of them recommending it should be referred to Arbitration. So I chose to close accordingly in light of such consensus. Note that I am not familiar and have not reviewed the ANI, but my impression (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's at a standstill and impasse. I, therefore, recommend the Committee to accept this case. El_C 05:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Members of the Committee: I do not envy you! El_C 08:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SilkTork, I thought ANI (like AE) was unable to resolve this dispute — I stand corrected. But I still feel an Arbitration case is due here. Because the problem ANI is likely to face if this were to be brought before it stem from the sheer complexity of the evidence involved. Yes, even if the remedies themselves might, at a glance, seem fairly straight forward. But maybe I can't see the forest from the trees. El_C 17:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the mainspace, I had added DS to History of the Jews in Poland et al., so that has already been in place weeks before the AE request was filed. El_C 20:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you GoldenRing for the background and the framing. Hopefully, the Committee will find it as helpful as I did. El_C 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

Ugh. This is a problem with many angles. As someone who has been involved in this topic area for ~15 years, and interacted with pretty much all involved editors, here is my analysis.

1. Polish-Jewish history, particularly WWII-one and thereabouts, is subject to extensive and ongoing historical research. Within it, there are several camps, some of which, with academics at professor rank, effectively calling one another names and accusing one another (or their 'camp') of major bias. Icewhiz description of one of those camps is correct - as long as one accepts that it comes from another camp... which in turn is described in a similar pejorative way by the other. While there is some mainstream 'center', the content problem we face is that the 'more extreme' camps both have some more or less reliable scholars, and the related discussions often involve inconclusive discussions of whether some author/source is an expert, fringe, etc.. All of this is further complicated by a number of issues, such as political interference (ex. both Poland and Israel have state-sponsored research institutes which are not immune to political agendas), and political correctness (as in, associations of antisemitism, anti-Polish attitude, and the imperfect balance between those - i.e. accusing person of one of those attitudes carries a bit more negative connotations than accusing them of the other one; I'll let you work out which is more 'damning'. Not all bigots are equal...). Anyway, the point is that while it is easy to weed out unreliable non-academic sources (ex. far right, nationalistic press, etc.) it is much more challenging to decide if a professor, who still teaches, publishes and generally is not pelted with tomatoes or ostracized by his peers or neighbors, is an unreliable anti-something or just biased within bounds acceptable by NPOV.

2. Editors involved:

• first, why are we talking about Loosmark, banned since 2010?
• second, Poeticbent, who retired in early 2018? Nonetheless his case deserves more consideration, because Poeticbent was the most prolific editor in Polish-Jewish topics, easily measured by ~1000+ articles he started, hundreds of which ended up at DYK, and a few as GA. For example, he wrote probably 75% of not more entries and content on WWII-era Jewish ghettos. Following a very random and unfair IMHO AE ruling based on a single diff perceived as violating NPA for which he received a 6-month topic ban, with no prior history of topic bans, blocks or even warnings (context: [50] and here), he retired, saying effectively 'if this is the reward I get from the community after so much work, bye'. This is a testament to the misguided cowboy random lottery ban that is AE, and to how certain admins should be politely asked to move to a different mop'n'bucket area instead of making a desert, and calling it peace. It also offers a constructive option for this ArbCom (given that Poeticbent is somehow a 'party' to it) - this topic ban should be reviewed and rescinded, with an apology issued. This could bring a prolific content creator back. And what is a better outcome than getting another 1000+ quality articles in this topic area?
• third, Icewhiz. Per his statement, he joined this topic area in December 2017. In my view, his input has been valuable (for example, per his diff, he saved an article from AfD; while I was the nominator of that, in hindsight I concur keeping it was the right choice). But it is also a fact that until he joined this topic area it has been quite stable for years. Since, it has indeed become a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Now, it is hardly Icewhiz's sole doing - it takes 'two to tango', and there are other editors active in this topic area. Icewhiz's input is valuable as it represents a viewpoint from one of the 'camps' I mentioned in my previous paragraph that was indeed unfairly underrepresented, and I commend Icewhiz on improving the neutrality of the coverage in this area. However, it is also my view that he is unwilling to compromise with the 'other camp' editors. I describe such an attitude in this mini-essay. This lack of desire to compromise on his part, given that he is now one of the most active editors in this area, is, IMHO, one of the main causes why this topic area became unstable. While source quality and neutrality are often improved in the end, many articles in that area keep swinging from one side (camp...) to the other, as unwillingness to compromise breeds likewise mentality 'on the other side'. A major problem is that some editors refuse to accept sources from 'the other camp', and a lot of warring is due to that.
• VM. To some degree, a mirror image of Icewhiz representing the views of 'another camp'. There are, of course, differences in attitude (VM seems to have more issues with NPA/CIV than Icewhiz) or history (VM has been involved in this topic area for much longer, and with generally no wiki conflicts prior to Icewhiz joining this topic area).

3. My analysis of diffs was removed by the clerks which also removed the diff link to it. If you think you'd like to read it, you have to hunt for it in the page history, because, sigh. Unless it gets oversighted.

4. Final thought. Would topic banning both Ice and VM solve the issue here? I dislike bans, but it would be nice to see peace and quiet return to this topic area again. But perhaps some conflict is preferable to lack of neutrality, as in the end, IMHO this topic area as improved despite, and perhaps even due, to the occasional conflict between those two editors (and few others). As I suggested above, the most constructive course of action, instead of banning anyone, could be, gasp, to anti-ban Poeticbent and invite him back with an apology, so that he could resume his mass production of relevant articles and DYKs. His loss has hurt us all, and his return would be the only clear win for this topic area I can imagine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Pudeo[edit]

I recommend accepting this case because of the intensity of the dispute and the inability of AE to deal with such a broad issue. The "Polish death camp" controversy article had massive edit wars in early 2018 and the actual issue just keeps boiling under the surface and popping up in different articles (historians, historical figures, organisations, politics etc.) What got this topic into spotlight was the February 2018 Polish Act on the Institute of National Remembrance so the edit-warring in the aforementioned article would be a good starting point. There also was some nasty off-site trolling by someone pretending to be Tatzref (talk · contribs) because of edits in this topic area. I would add some of the editors from the original death camp controversy article as parties, and most of them have had the some dispute in several other articles as well. --Pudeo (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps it needs to be further spelled out that it's just not Holocaust in Poland, but Jewish-Polish issues during World War II generally. These articles had a lot of similar disputes:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, Bielski partisans, Koniuchy massacre, Naliboki massacre, Blue Police, Paradisus_Judaeorum etc. with many editors participating in all of them (not just Marek and Icewhiz). --Pudeo (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Paul August[edit]

I think a length exception ought to be granted to Piotrus, so as to accommodate his complete statement. Paul August ☎ 19:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]

@Katie I respectfully disagree. To save space, please read this discussion with was inspired by the current case. It discusses the fake description of the image, which represents Jews as pro-Soviet "fifth column" in Poland, and which implicitly justified the actions of Poles. You may also be interested to note the opinion of Ealdgyth on that matter.

In my opinion, the primary problem here is not a conflict between two users. The root of this conflict is the worrying tendency of admins to focus on behavioural issues and ignoring the cases when minor or even major misinterpretations of sources are committed in attempt to push some minority POV. It would be incorrect to blame only VM or Poeticbent in that: the admins created a situation when one can safely treat sources liberally as soon as proper decorum is observed. Based on my own experience, I can say that it takes enormous time and efforts to figure out a real origin of fake information in Wikipedia and to eradicate it. It is a really worrying tendency, because Wikipedia has tons of mirrors that give a wide circulation to those fake facts. Usually, I encounter source misinterpretation just by accident, that means there is potentially a lot of fake facts in Wikipedia. Do admins care? No. "You found an error - just fix it" - our policy says. However, what if this error is being constantly re-added by some polite and experienced users who act according to a local consensus? How do admins approach this problem? "This is just a content dispute" - they say. "This appears to be between XXXX and YYYY", - they respond.

This approach created a situation when Wikipedia content, at least, in some sensitive areas covered by DS, became a hostage of emotional stability of the parties involved in the dispute. If one party loses their temper, the second party's POV wins no matter whose interpretation of sources was correct. Do you admins really believe this state of things leads to improvement of Wikipedia?

Taking into account that Wikipedia is not a social network where emotional comfort of users is a primary concern of admins, but an encyclopedia that is supposed to provide a good quality content, the correct approach to this and similar conflict would be:

removed to fit into the 1000 words limit. I seems obsolete

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 7[edit]

Before I propose the solution, I recommend you to read the analysis of the conflict between several Wikipedians around the Vietnam war article (another area of conflict in Wikipedia). This analysis was performed by a professional scientist, not by a Wikipedian, and it was published in a peer-reviewed reliable source. In particular, the author concludes that Wikipedia "changes the criteria we use to judge expertise, albeit, I would argue, without replacing them with much that could be construed as progressive". Indeed, when a discussion revolves around the question who should be banned/restricted and for how long, that is de facto a judgement of one's expertise (the party that has not been sanctioned gets a right to continue editing, which is an implicit acknowledgement of expertise). Obviously, this is a dramatic modification of traditional criteria, and these criteria are definitely worse, because uncivil behaviour have no relation to one's expertise.

I agree Arbcom cannot and should not analyze the sources and correctness of their usage. However, Arbcom can impose additional restrictions on the usage of sources that will make tendentious editing more problematic.

Taking into account that I myself was among the Wikipedians whose behaviour was analyzed in the above cited article, and that I was the only user who, according to the author, used a correct approach to judging one's expertise, I believe I can propose a solution.

I believe, you agree that the whole conflict revolves around the following collisions:

1. "Your source is marginal, my source is mainstream."

2. "What I am writing is a mainstream POV, whereas you are advocating minority views."

3. "This source says X, whereas you write it says Y."

Accordingly, the sanctions should be:

1. More stringent source selection: The parties are allowed to use only top quality reliable sources, i.e. the peer-reviewed sources that can be found via Google Scholar, Scopus, Jstor, Thompson-Reuter, and few other scientific/scholar search engines. That immediatelly eliminates 90% of garbage sources (which, unfortunately, are allowed per our policy), and lion's share of conflicts will die.

2. The users must perform the search jointly and according to a transparent procedure: In the case when the parties disagree about a neutral representation of some topic that is described differently in the sources that fit the criterion #1, (i) each party proposes their own search string, for example, anti-jewish violence in Poland, and perform google scholar search. The highly cited articles and books from the top of the resulted list are selected as mainstream ones. (ii) If another party disagrees, they propose their own search string, for example, polish resistance movement jews and, these lists are compared. (iii) When the list of sources has been compiled, the parties jointly propose the text, which they add to the article. What is important, the procedure of source selection is transparent now, so there will be no accusation of cherry picking, and it will be easy to see which POV is major and which is minor. And, most importantly, since both sources and the procedure of their selection are common knowledge now, then, per Aumann's agreement theorem, the ground for a conflict disappears.

3. If ##1&2 are implemented, I doubt the type 3 conflict to happen too quickly. Nevertheless, if that conflict takes place, the parties jointly select some user who will decide who is right, and only after that the proposed changes are implemented.

I hope this will work, and that may give us a new tool to deal with that type conflicts. I also believe this will work because the topic of that kind differs from some school football team or anime series articles, which means it is covered by very good quality sources, and additional restriction described above will not affect the content negatively.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 7[edit]

Statement by Tatzref[edit]

This arbitration request is misplaced. It is based on the faulty premise that (presumably) Polish-background Wiki editors and sources are biased and unreliable. In fact, Icewhiz has been involved in biased, unreliable and even fraudulent postings. Icewhiz is not part of the solution, rather a large part of the problem.

Last year Icewhiz and K.e.coffman concocted a bogus attempt to discredit a major book, Sowjetische Partisanen, by historian Bogdan Musial, published by a renowned German publishing house (Schoningh, 2009) and 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). The book was removed from the “Bielski Brothers” article several times as allegedly “fringe” and “SPS” (self-published sources).

Icewhiz relies on Joanna Michlic, a minor historian, in an attempt to “prove” that Musial and Chodakiewicz are nationalist hacks. No major Holocaust historian has paid any heed to what Michlic thinks about these authors. Chodakiewicz’s monograph, The Massacre in Jedwabne, is one of very few publications of hundreds on Jedwabne cited and relied on by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press, 2010). Joanna Michlic has herself been exposed as a biased author who specializes in detecting alleged antisemitism at every turn. See for example, Joshua Zimmerman, The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945 (Cambridge University Press, 2015), at p. 103–104.

Recently Icewhiz has been championing Laurence Weinbaum as a reliable source, although his essay in The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust (New York University Press, 2000) is replete with flagrant errors (p.101), which I detailed under Talk: The History of Jews in Poland. Weinbaum is not an independent historian, but the mouthpiece of the World Jewish Congress, an organization with an aggressive restitution agenda, for whom he works as a research and editorial officer. The book was edited by Avi Beker, Director of International Affairs, WJC and Executive Director of the Israel Office. It is clearly a POV effort. In order to bolster Weinbaum’s bogus claim that the Polish authorities blocked the return of Jews from DP camps in Germany, Icewhiz engaged in a flagrant misrepresentation, claiming “The “grossly discrimanatory” Polish act was criticized by US president Truman,” whereas according to the very source he cited, Truman was criticizing certain provisions of the 1948 Displaced Persons Act.

Icewhiz has also been disruptive 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 them he accused me of edit warring on my Talk page. When I asked him to explain why he was removing neutral information for which I had provided third party sources, he failed to do so.

Statement by Risker[edit]

Just a note in passing that there seem to be very conflicting instructions from the arbcom clerks about word limits for statements, and extensions to those word limits. Even as someone who's spent years following these cases, I can't tell who is and is not permitted extensions, or whether all the extensions were withdrawn and now everyone has to cut back to the standard 750 words. Could an arbitrator please clarify if there is anyone who is permitted a longer submission and, if so, what the actual restriction is? Thank you.

Statement by Xx236[edit]

@Paul Siebert - do you see only Polish nationalistic bias here? Many edits by Icewhiz are biased anti-Polish. Icewhiz pretends to be an expert in Polish history, but he doean't read Polish, he uses computer translations of Polish language texts, which he sometimes misunderstands. Anti-Semitism is wrong, but is anti-Polonism acceptable?

Fighting Polish nationalism may remove any Polish editors interested in history. Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Icewhiz (mis)uses computer translations, is it misinterpretation?Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ymblanter - Poland belongs to Central Eastern Europe and is an EU member since 15 years, which is a little different than eg. Transnistria. Irish or Bask nationalisms are Western and more bloody than the Polish one. Any generalisations of Eastern Europe is discrimination, racism. How is it possible that you can see six Polish nationalistic edits, but you ignore hundredss of anti-Polish ones by Icewhiz and his supporters?Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@François Robere And the other teaches history in Ottawa. The Polish aacdemicians are sometimes sociologists, historians of literature, psychologists, they write about psychology and sociology of the Holocaust rather than about facts. Grabowski's Hunt for the Jews has been corrected by Tomasz Frydel from Toronto, co-author of Dalej jest noc. Grabowski uses false numbers, which isn't academic.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sir Joseph a concerted effort by Polish nationalists to distort and revise history. This is a Wikipedia, not a forum to discuss NYC local events.Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter[edit]

I really find this diff extremely concerning. An editor who is barely active here over a dozen of years but who is pretty active in the Polish Wikipedia suddenly shows up and makes several edits within a short time interval - all of them replacing Polish nationality with Jewish nationality in infoboxes of articles about Polish citizens of Jewish origin. Accidentally, the ANI request is underway at the time of edits, and accidentally these edits have been already introduced before by other users and reverted by their opponents. This means there is likely a concerted effort similar to the Eastern European mailing list aimed at engaging users who are normally not active here into edit-warring on "their" side. (Note that I am not seeking sanctions against the user, as it is clear from the subsequent discussion they clearly did not understand what they were dragged into).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am doing quite some admin work (I might be even the most active admin currently in Eastern European topics, though not specifically Polish), and I see similar behavior a lot. On the other hand, we have already authorized discretionary sanctions in the EE area (and in some more specific areas), and this behavior (including misrepresenting sources and concerted efforts to push certain viewpoint) is going on for years, so that I am not sure what else can be done here. Most admins prefer to stay away from the area, and those who dive in and start blocking established editors quickly burn out or walk away.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me try to reformulate the last part a bit. I think this is a complex dispute which involves not just Icewhiz and VM (who both usually act more or less constructively) but a lot of editors. I do not think there is any way a community can resolve it (with a possible exception of topic-banning everybody who is even tangentially involved here). I do not think ArbCom can resolve it either. One needs some brainstorming on what are the best practices of dealing with partisan sources of unclear notability (the main issue here), when the reliable sources noticeboard can not help. This brainstorming can happen in the framework of this case, or elsewhere, but, to be honest, I am not that hopeful: Existing processes already failed, and the community is unlikely to accept any new process at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

I just want to say that I do think ARBCOM should take the case, it is not just a dispute between Icewhiz and VM and it should not just be an ANI or DR issue. I want to echo what Ymblanter said. I also want to say that there is currently a concerted effort by Polish nationalists to distort and revise history, and we saw some of that in NYC a few weeks ago during a protest and we are seeing some of that in Wikipedia as well as some SPA are popping up. VM's behavior in all this has not been ideal and for whatever reason he seems to be allowed to skate by and this should also be looked into. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by François Robere[edit]

Regarding VM's conduct, I'm mainly concerned with WP:NPA: Is it policy, or not? If it is, then why isn't it enforced? Here's some of VM's comments from the last two weeks:

• "Very clearly someone went through the internet and tried to drudge up anything negative to add here" [51] - summary of an edit removing well sourced criticism of the subject's theoretical approach, which I thought went well with the (many) criticisms of his ideological involvement. VM could've objected on editorial grounds - relevance, clarity, etc. - but instead he chose to attack me personally.
• "f no. Enough of these BLP vios and using Wikipedia articles as smear pages. I've tried to keep all the legitimate and well sourced criticism in the article to the extent it was possible but the over the top nasty and gleeful attacks DO violate BLP" [52] - about a completely DUE criticism by a source who's a project director at Brandeis and a fellow at Harvard and UCL. Like most criticisms in that article, this too was eventually accepted into the consensus "stonewalling" and repeated objections.
• "Stop making shit up" [53] - an oft-repeated phrase. It may sounds like an off-hand comment, but it's actually a serious accusation: that an editor falsified a claim. I don't understand why admins take it so lightly.

Now multiply this by a dozen or two dozen articles over a year... that's a lot of PA.

@Softlavender and RickinBaltimore: We've had perhaps a dozen discussions at ANI/AE, which proved mostly ineffective. How would another one change anything?

@SilkTork and Katie: VM has already been warned at least twice against personal attacks / aspersions.[54][55] It didn't work.

@My very best wishes: This is certainly not just "Icewhiz vs. VM" or "Icewhiz vs. the rest", as you well know. There are other editors and broader narratives involved.

@Piotrus: This has become a battleground not because of Icewhiz, but because of external events that push editors in its direction, like the IPN law and the JUST act. I disagree regarding Icewhiz and compromises: if you review the changes and discussions process on the most recently-contested articles (Chodakiewicz, the JUST act and History of the Jews in Poland) you'll see quite a lot of shift on Icewhiz's, your and my positions, and very little on others'. VM, in particular, was more engaged in "stonewalling" than in constructive discussion.

A note on "camps": Piotrus is right in observing that academia is divided to camps, but I disagree with his decisively post-modern view. From what I can tell, there are two, not three camps: "mainstream" global academia, including many Polish scholars; and a certain branch of Polish academia (including a handful of Polish scholars abroad). When Gross, a scholar with 2,000< citations globally, calls Chodakiewicz "anti-semitic", it reads differently than when Chodakiewicz, with 200< citations, groups 5-6 of his critics and brands them all "neo-Stalinists". It's different when one heads a research center at Polish Academy of Sciences, and the other teaches history in some college in Alaska. But for some reason it's the latter, not the former, that gets pushed every which way on Wikipedia; and it's the former that gets reverted, or worse: smeared. Funny thing is at the end those who try to promote the better sources get accused of "not liking Poles", as if Gross / Grabowski / Michlic / Krakowski / Gutman et al. aren't Polish enough... François Robere (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Opabinia regalis and SilkTork: The request could probably have been phrased more clearly; personally I am of the opinion that ARBCOM should review this topic area more broadly. However, the fear is that it'll result in broad bans for everyone involved as an "easy" solution, rather than a thorough examination and more targeted sanctions.

@Paul Siebert: I agree with your analysis of admins' behavior, and I protested against that almost every single time we were at ANI/AE. I disagree with your approach to PA, however: other than being a sort of baiting that even experienced editors might fall for, repeated PA make the discussion quite unpleasant, which has an emotional toll on editors. There's no reason Wikipedia should be a "toxic work environment". François Robere (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoldenRing: A suggestion: each "side" produces a list of 5-10 experts who they consider RS in the field; they may also submit a short criticism of the other side's experts. The committee then picks 5-6 experts from the combined list and asks for their input on specific revisions or specific sources, which is then fed back to the usual ARBCOM processes. François Robere (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]

Written on 3 June[edit]

First, in my opinion, any suggestion that a dispute should be resolved at WP:ANI when it is eligible for Arbitration Enforcement is seriously misguided, and any suggestion that a dispute between established stubborn editors can be resolved at WP:ANI is seriously misguided. WP:ANI works well for trolls, flamers, vandals, and other sorts of editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. It very seldom is satisfactory at resolving disputes between established stubborn editors, and this appears to be a dispute between established stubborn editors. In such cases, WP:ANI simply re-illustrates that the community is divided or polarized. If the arbitrators at Arbitration Enforcement said to take the case back to Arbitration, then it is unlikely that WP:ANI will resolve anything. Either ArbCom should conduct a full evidentiary hearing, or ArbCom should kick the case back to Arbitration Enforcement, or ArbCom should take summary action, or ArbCom should develop a procedure that is in between a full evidentiary hearing and kicking the matter back.

I propose that a two-part solution is needed. In the medium run, ArbCom should develop a procedure for handling cases in a faster way than full cases, possibly via panels. In the short run, I recommend that ArbCom act summarily in the case in point. It is clear that the editors in question are unable to present a concise summary of the case. So stop them from arguing at excessive length. Impose an interaction ban and topic-bans summarily.

Written after reading statement by User:Paul Siebert[edit]

However, after reading the statement by User:Paul Siebert, I concur that there is an underlying issue about how to deal with editing that respects civility but ignores neutral point of view. Such disputes sometimes become wars of attrition (like the Eastern Front in World War Two). I urge ArbCom to accept this dispute with a two-part focus. The first should be the general question to address what procedures are needed to deal with filibusters of civil POV-pushing. The second should be to deal with this specific dispute by taking appropriate summary action against one or more of the principals in this dispute.

The idea of sending this dispute to WP:ANI is misguided (and will not resolve it). I urge ArbCom to accept this dispute with a two-part focus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Stefka Bulgaria[edit]

I agree with some editors here that taking this to ANI will create a bigger mess there, and chances of that producing a clear outcome are slim. I concur with François Robere that there is clear evidence here of WP:PA by VM. Icewhiz's response to VM's apparent hounding and PAs has been to bring arguments back to content, so characterising this as a simply "dispute between two editors" overlooks evidence presented here.

I particularly found Ymblante's and Paul Siebert's comments quite eye opening, and agree that distorting sources in order to push a minority POV is a big problem. I've found several reliable outlets regurgitating distorted facts presented on Wikipedia, and that should be a priority concern for everyone here. IMHO, coordinated and persistent efforts to distort WP:NPOV should be examined, and this may be the most appropriate forum for such a task. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response after Statement by GoldenRing[edit]

GoldenRing's input is helpful as they seem to have experience with this case, but I respectfully disagree about their comments concerning behaviour. It's apparent that both editors have not dwelt with this dispute in the same way: it's one thing to call out someone for using an antisemitic source, but it's a completely different thing to resort to repeated insulting/name-calling. This, this, this, or this all seem like repeated WP:NPA violations to me. I can't find the same behaviour on Icewhiz's edits, so clearly both sides are not the same here.

If content is currently too time-consuming for analysis, then behaviour should at least be addressed (and that should not take up much time). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Written on June 6[edit]

Looking at some of the editing history of articles related to this report, I see Icewhiz constantly discussing content through policy, always being polite, and dropping the stick when things get too tangled up. My experience editing with Icewhiz in other articles is that he's usually quite accurate about sources, is very versed on Wiki policy, and is perhaps the most level-headed non-admin editor that I've come across in this platform. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing[edit]

I would urge the committee to accept this case. When administrators at AE conclude that the case is too hard for them to sort out using DS, doesn't that indicate that the dispute is one the community is unable to resolve? ANI is not more able to resolve complex disputes than AE; that, after all, is why AE was set up.

@SilkTork, KrakatoaKatie, and RickinBaltimore: Dispute resolution has been tried. This dispute has been simmering for years. Nearly a year ago, this AE request — a near-carbon-copy of the present one — tried to resolve the same dispute. I then floated the possibility that this case was too complex for AE to deal with and a full case would be required. My full comment there applies equally to this case and I urge the arbs to read it; the TL;DR is that sorting this out requires either a plauge-on-both-your-houses approach or such a deep understanding of the academic historiography of Jews in Poland in the 1930s & 40s that no-one is going to be qualified to do it. The former approach is so likely to lead to horrific grief for the enforcing admin that no-one is prepared to do it.

At that time, I privately asked both participants to explain to me what they saw the dispute as being about. They both deserve credit for their responses; they were, I think, honest and actually tried to help me understand. Sadly, it didn't help. They both have reasoned, reasonable-sounding positions on the content and I am in no position to decide who is misusing sources and who is not. The behaviour here is inextricably linked to the content. When one editor accuses another of peddling anti-semitic sources, either they are right or they are making a personal attack. When the other editor responds with an accusation of peddling racist, anti-Polish sources, either they are right or they are making a personal attack. It is true that neither side's style of interacting with each other has helped, but the real-world argument is fundamentally about genocide vs holocaust denial; this is never going to be an easy area to edit in. In the end, I took a week's holiday and someone jumped in with a three-month TBAN for both; it clearly has resolved nothing.

Accepting a case would help in two ways: Firstly, the structure of the evidence phase would help to assemble the competing arguments in a forum that doesn't lend itself to screaming and bickering. ANI is the wrong venue for this; the formality of a case is what is required here. Secondly, the arbs are paid to get their heads around complex situations and sort them out. If I spent two solid days of my time trying to understand it all and failed, the chances of anyone at ANI getting a realistic handle on it is vanishingly small.

Please accept this case. GoldenRing (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More prior dispute resolution attempts:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248#Tatzref
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Volunteer_Marek
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive237#Icewhiz (related to the one linked in my statement above)

Statement by Zero[edit]

I agree with most of what Goldenring wrote, especially the conclusion that ArbCom should take the case.

However I disagree very strongly with the assertion that the problem is "fundamentally about genocide vs holocaust denial". Actually nobody here is denying the holocaust. The real question is of how to assign relative weights to two undeniable historical facts. One is that a large number of Polish civilians died during WWII, and the other is that some Poles collaborated with the Nazis in the genocide of the Jews. Complicating this further is the role of the Soviets.

The primary matter appropriate for ArbCom to address is not the petty one of personal bickering, but the one of honesty and balance in the use of sources. Not to adjudicate reasonable content disputes but to judge whether the principal editors are here to build a great encyclopedia. Zero^talk 17:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

The root issue here is a breakdown of WP:AGF by almost everyone involved (including far more people than just Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek, as some of the discussion and back-and-forth above shows.) Many, many people in this topic area are operating under an assumption of bad faith for a large number of established users - whether it's assumptions of holocaust denial, anti-polish sentiment, antisemitism, being here to push a particular POV, or the like. (And, of course, the determination that they need to fight that sort of thing leads to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on their own part, which other people see and take as validation for their own assumption of bad faith.) This is what led to many of the knee-jerk reverts, counter-reverts, use of weak sourcing, sweeping accusations and so on outlined above.

As tempting as it is to pass this off to WP:ANI, I don't feel they're capable of dealing with something of that nature. Worse, the widespread factionalism around this topic means that any WP:ANI discussion has a high chance of spreading bad blood and making things even worse. What's really needed here is not just a determination of who is wrong or right or a set of topic/interaction-bans or whatever, but a deep dive into the disputes within the topic area followed by a well-structured, well-grounded finding of fact that can get people to stand down - or, if that investigation proves it's necessary, eject anyone whose WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook seems to be irreparable, regardless of how well they otherwise follow the rules. Only ArbCom can provide that, so I urge them to accept despite their misgivings (and despite, I know, the large amount of mostly-thankless work that this case will doubtless entail.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Levivich[edit]

There are some really great, insightful statements here by many editors. I see a group of experienced editors and admin here with involvement in this topic area who agree, I think unanimously, that there is a serious problem that needs addressing. They disagree about what the problem is, never mind who is responsible or how to address it. I don't know if this has been tried before on Wikipedia, but why not form a sort of Truth and reconciliation commission for this Polish/Jewish topic area. That could be a page where diffs can be presented in an orderly fashion, analyzed by everyone, and discussed. Yes, this could be done by Arbcom in the evidence phase of a case, but maybe that's not the best forum for it (that's not for me to decide). As the old saying goes, you can't get justice from a bored judge. If there aren't enough arbitrators who are interested in taking the case or think they can be helpful or have the time necessary to devote to it, I still see like a dozen editors commenting here who are qualified and could look at diffs together and perhaps at least identify what the problem is, exactly, which might lead to solutions. So, I'm saying, if Arbcom doesn't take the case, perhaps the editors commenting here could just set up a task force or a commission of sorts and just examine the evidence anyway and see where that goes. The analysis might proceed diff by diff, or source by source, or article by article, or editor by editor–I'm not sure–but it seems like we have the resources we need in this very group of editors to investigate the problem. – Levivich 07:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by QEDK[edit]

To put it quite simply, this is too much for ANI. I understand the rationales that the ArbCom members are putting forward but what's important is that if it's thrown back to the community, the chances of a resolution are close to nil. The main reason of having an ArbCom is to enact targeted remedies at very complex situations, a group of editors to pick apart at an issue with a toothpick until it unravels itself, throwing it at ANI is like making fillet with a chainsaw — is it possible? Yes, but is that the most reliable way? Definitely not. Most ANI threads which sprawl over walls of text end up with next to no solution (mostly) and my instinct tells me that will be the case here as well. The declining committee members should reconsider. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker[edit]

What this needs is mediation, where the moderator can direct the discussion, and shut down personalization. The mediation should identify the one, two or three central articles to discuss, get the parties either to agree on content or construct RfC's (with research laid out) to settle it. The choice of central articles will flow to other articles in the affected area. I am sure their are other examples, in Arb cases, but look to the Muhammad arb case, and related mediation. (Perhaps 'Troubles' and 'abortion' too). I think it would be good to accept because, if you do it right, it will clear the way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Cas Liber[edit]

Yeah this looks complex enough to need a case. Also, @KrakatoaKatie: ok maybe not assess sourcing in huge detail but you need to at least take note if people add material that has been warped or misrepresented from the source, or reliable sources replaced with unreliable sources. This sort of editing is much more insidious and damaging to wikipedia. If two people are edit-warring and one is misrepresenting sources, it needs to be reviewed. You can't punish both without at least trying to figure that out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

As an admin active at AE and in some cases related to this topic area, I entirely endorse what GoldenRing, above, wrote, and strongly recommend to accept a case to determine whether there is systematic misconduct by established editors in this topic area. Discretionary sanctions are available, but not helpful here, because the underlying dispute about sourcing is too difficult for AE admins not versed in the relevant scholarship (i.e., everybody) to get a grip on. Sandstein 14:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]