Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

Socking

Loosmark banned 29-Nov-2010. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark/Archive: Poeticbent likely Loosmark, confirmed to 14-Sep-2011 socks.

[1] - IPN sockpuppetry, Polish institution that promotes revisionism in Polish-Jewish relations.[2]

Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes

Poeticbent has created a number of anti-Jewish hoaxes (generally also downplaying/obfuscating Polish-Jewish incidents), which have persisted for years in the topic area. Other editors have enabled this: Piotrus believes Poeticbent deserves an apology,[3] and Volunteer Marek has defended/reverted some hoax content.

1. Jewish Welcoming: commons, wiki1, wiki2. Citation doesn't support. Polish/English mismatch. Contradicted by: sign's text, image composition, source. fixedCommons(+on-wiki!)
2. 1941 pogroms: Outside coverage. On EnglishWiki 1941 anti-Jewish pogroms carried out by Poles (with possibly limited German involvement) were turned into Jewish persecution of Poles followed by German action against Jews. Two examples:
   1. Stawiski:PB-sock: Unsupported by citations. Sources in fix(+others) contradict. PB reverted a few times 2013-5, e.g.: [4][5]. GizzyCatBella "sourced and stable version", again + after request to self-revert: TBANed at AE. Note VM: "there's nothing wrong with GCB restoring a previous stable version."[6]
   2. Radziłów: Poeticbent introduced. PB-sock. Not supported by citations, contradicted by sources in fix. VM aware of Levin misuse per GCB AE above. VM "Restore Dov Levin", "not a misrepresentation" although "Lithuanian peasants". Eventually self-reverted. In fact, misquote ("local Poles"/"Polish families"), WP:CHERRY, lacking context, different (unknown) location. (PolishWiki reasonable)
3. Extermination-camps:
   1. Chelmno: Poeticent Jews and Poles from all nearby towns: citation contradicts, USHMM too. Fixed.
   2. Belzec: In article for years, Poeticbent: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2015. This misrepresents citation as students cleaned in the 90s, not 50s + "second half of the 1950s ...drew the first serious attention": counter-source: 1945 investigation (passed to Germans in 50s) + gravedigging publicity/investigations. See talkpage. (PolishWiki extensively treats wartime/postwar gravedigging.)
4. Jewish immigration: PB-sock. VM reverted+ again as "well sourced", absent in talk. Mostly absent in citation + contradicted: page 70 quotation on economic hardship hampering immigration, page 72 Ben-Gurion rejected proposals. Other sources discuss anti-Jewish violence, such as the Kielce pogrom, as a trigger for immigration.

Volunteer Marek's harrassment of Icewhiz

Volunteer Marek has hounded me and hurled insults at me. I have requested them to stop: December 2018, April 2019.

Personal attacks:

1. "dishonest": [7]
2. "your bigotry": [8] (following fiction removal)
3. "your prejudicial proclivities": [9]
4. "Sleazeball": [10]
5. "nonesense...peddling": [11]
6. "racial/racism/racist": [12] [13]
7. "extremism/extremist": [14][15][16]
8. WP:ASPERSIONS: [17][18][19][20]

Hounding: 15-30/5 on ~38 articles.[21] Articles VM edited for the first time right after Icewhiz: (more available)

Faraway from Poland: (dup-cat: CFD)

Volunteer Marek POV/FRINGE

While Volunteer Marek has generally reasonable views in other topic areas, in Poland he's been advocating that Polish Jews not be described as Polish, espouses the fringe "radical negation" ([22]) in relation to Polish communism, and views sources/academics/editors discussing Polish antisemitism as racist.

MOS:ETHNICITY:

1. [23]: Was Catholic."clarify it": Catholic absent. See Talk:Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga#Jew?. [24]: "No idea what a "former Jews" means"
2. [25]: removing "Polish". [26]: "Polish" ethnicity, not nationality (contrast Dutch (Uri Rosenthal), French (Robert Badinter)).
3. [27]: removed "Polish".
4. [28]: doubling-down: "...people who were both Polish and Jewish...leave both out....". Counter: WP:MOSETHNICITY.

POV:

1. [29]: Singling out Jews in diverse unit. Note Lamoth citation is photograph unrelated to massacre.
2. [30],[31],[32]: RS/BLP. RSes+IWP support.
3. [33]: "still a rival government": in 1968... Older:[34]: 1989 independence. [35] - NPOV means communist/communist/NKVD/Stalin (commie trifecta?) in each clause of single lede sentence. (PolishWiki avoids such tagging in much longer lede)
4. [36]: "remove some gratuitous and off topic Pole bashing". Also: [37]
5. [38]: "COATRACK ... disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV". Haaretz ties, as others.
6. Issues with sourced popular/widespread prevelance of object: [39] "nonsense", [40] "what does "popular" mean?", [41] While survey editorialized (limited/not-popular) +misrepresented..(PolishWiki notes 21st-century popularity lede+body)
7. [42] "photographer", "rant", "stuffed full of inaccuracies, falsehoods...". [43] Again. Peer-reviewed publication by literature historian/cultural anthropologist.

Also BLPs:

1. [44]: removing positive peer-reviewed sources, inserting negative WP:PRIMARY nationalist organization. VM inverts negative/positive (Poland/BLP-subject?).
2. [45]: restoring WP:BLPSPS. Subsequently removed.

Volunteer Marek: Verification

While Volunteer Marek creates little content himself, he routinely restore content that fails verification and doesn't engage in a constructive manner on talk to resolved the issue. He has actually admitted restoring content challenged on verification grounds without checking the cited sources.

1. Szymon Datner PB-sock. SYNTH+mildly inaccurate. VM restores, adds source. VM reverts V-challenge, PA ("not "OR" it's just "knowing what the fuck one is talking about...rather than just making obnoxious POV edits"). The source contains nothing on Datner or commission. Indicative of VM's approach to discussion and sourcing.
2. Jew with a coin: MyMoloboaccount,VM removes failed-V tag,VM reverts. Talk (VM absent). Citation + English summary of citation differ.
3. Restitution: Tatzref, AE here (without prejudice to future action). 1557 citation bytes copied from Mark Paul. WikiText follows Paul, not citations. 1945 law repealed&replaced 1946. Kopciowski lacks "thousands", Klucze i kasa chapters by Skibińska and Krzyżanowski read differently. Skibińska[46] and Krzyżanowski[47] summarize(English) differently.
   1. Piotrus reverted: admitted no verification.
   2. VM reverted: admitted not checking Kopciowski. Recently, 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 "verification" vs. non-RS Paul.(Rfc)
   3. (PolishWiki ties immigration to anti-Jewish violence, no restitution, aliyah)
4. Tatzref (along with BLPVIO: "Based on no research, Michael Meng speculates".). Contains: "Based on research into court records, Lukasz Krzyzanowski concludes that "a relatively large number of properties" were returned.": unreasonable summary of page, WP:CHERRYPICKED, removed qualifications (two specific cities, "possession, not ownership", "on the basis of court records, can", previous sentence "impossible to determine"). Krzyzanowski's English self-citation differs.[48]. Krzyzanowski reintroduced: MVBW, Piotrus, VM (17 edits), See talk page: VM's only comment PA/ASPERSIONS + while agreeing to other Krzyzanowski content, subsequent wholesale removal by VM.
5. Barczewo: MyMoloboaccount 2012. 2017 challenge, VM reverts in 2019. The municipal website(!) citation missing: "both Poles and Jews were classified as subhuman and targeted for extermination" outside mainstream scholarship. Piotrus reverted + again. Subsequently resolved.

Poeticbent/Pitorus Holocaust rescue

Holocaust rescue is controversial, and is promoted to "defend the good name of Poles and to silence any commentary depicting Poles in a bad light" by communists+current government. Serious scholarship tends to highlight aspects other than heroic narratives [49][50]

Poeticbent created/expanded ghetto articles as WP:COATRACKs for heroic rescue narratives, examples:

1. Sambor Ghetto: ignoring lede+background 628/1323 words(47.4%) on Polish rescue (Ukranian town). Dubious sourcing (Paul, Poray, etc.). Contrast USHMM's ecyclopedia which has 88 words on rescue (Polish&Ukranian) out of 2000 (4.4%), and 22 words on betrayal. See discussion.
2. Nowy Sącz Ghetto - ignoring lede+background 624/1258 words(49.6%) on Polish rescue. Dubious sourcing (Poray).
3. Będzin Ghetto - No rescue narratives prior, in series of edits expanded (ignoring lede+background) to 527/1182 words (44.5%)
4. Częstochowa Ghetto - No rescue narratives prior, expanded (ignoring lede) to 427/823 words (51.8%) - using primary and dubious sourcing (Poray).
5. Kielce Ghetto - following post-creation edits - 507/1611 words (31.4%) to rescue. Note "It was the location of the Kielce pogrom of 4 July 1946 in which 37 (40) Polish Jews (17–21 of whom remain unidentified) and 2 ethnic Poles died, including 11 fatally shot with military assault rifles and 11 more stabbed with bayonets, indicating direct involvement of the Stalinist troops (according to the official findings of the Institute of National Remembrance). doesn't quite check out vs. the citation... The Kielce pogrom is usually described in a different manner.
6. Tarnopol Ghetto - following post-creation edits 325/817 words (39.7%) in "Ghetto history" to Polish rescue. Ukrainians (city in Ukraine) are absent from any rescue descriptions though the section does contain: "The dug-outs for the Jews were often used by the Polish farmers themselves, whenever the OUN-UPA killing squads marching from village to village were in the area. At least 1,587 Christian Poles were murdered by OUN-UPA in the Tarnopol county (powiat) in 1944 before the Soviet takeover.".
7. Sosnowiec Ghetto - series of edits. All mention of Maus removed (award winning book whose stage is this ghetto, disliked in very certain circles). 521/1169 words (44.5%) in body to Holocaust rescue. Extensive use of WP:SPS Poray.
8. Radom Ghetto - series of edits. Ignoring lede+background - 452/856 words (52.8%) to Polish rescue. Extensive use of WP:SPS Poray.

Piotrus restored Poeticbent rescue material, using WP:PRIMARY & dubious sourcing (below).

Pitorus dubious sourcing

Piotrus has advocated for use and used sources that fall under WP:QS and/or WP:SPS:

1. [51] suggesting use of iUniverse book by Ewa Kurek (KUL rejected this dissertation). Known for far-right discourse and distortion, compared to David Irving.[52] Piotrus contrasting Kurek with mainstream scholars based on "Polish far-right media".
2. [53] - supporting use of self-published Mark Paul. [54] - advocating use of self-published Anna Poray. Both known for "ignoble ungrateful Jew" myth.[55].
3. [56]: Citing www.savingjews.org(Poray).
4. [57] - edited+self-published by SPLC-profiled individual.[58] Radzilowski asserts Neo-Stalinism of BLPs + academic field.
5. [59] - Asserting notability (ergo: reliable+secondary) by 1937 article by politician known for "Jewish question"[60]+expulsion[61] discourse.
6. Piotrus: pamiecitozsamosc.pl(Rydzyk/Lux-Veritatis) use -"The second area of activity for the extreme right has been the public media... role of the media group owned by the Catholic foundation Lux Veritatis and led by the charismatic Father Tadeusz Rydzyk. .... criticized by both Polish and international media, notably for the use of Catholicism as a political tool, and accused of the promotion of conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic propaganda."[62]. Also: coverage on Rydzyk/rescue

Anti-Polish POV and edits by Icewhiz

• [63], [64] - This is something Icewhiz followed in his editing, discussions and suggestion to Arbcom to rewrite WP:RS [65]. But he is wrong because:

1. Yes, the Polish law was bad, but it does not invalidate all Polish media and scholars. Even really oppressive countries (like Russia) have a few independent/reliable media (like Novaya Gazeta). But Icewhiz tells again [66] "media sources from those countries [Poland and ... Russia] are clearly unusable". What? Many Russian journalists were killed precisely because they did honest reporting.
2. Accusing all Polish journalists of not following their professional duties (honest reporting) is anti-Polish sentiment and ethnicity-based discrimination of sources. Hence the comment by VM [67].
3. Polish and Israeli media cover subjects differently. This needs to be resolved per WP:NPOV, i.e. using all RS. The blanket dismissal of all "Polish" sources qualify as POV pushing.

• [68] - telling that all Polish people, including those who edit Wikipedia must be involved in Holocaust denial.

• [69] - Icewhiz wants to blacklist a book by several Polish historians because they were criticized and WP:BIASED. But everyone was criticized (e.g. Charles Darwin), and the biased sources are valid. One should simply follow WP:RS [70].

• Responding to this, Icewhiz said [71] that genocidal policies by Nazi were directed only against Polish "dissenters and elites". This is misrepresenting Nazi crimes against the Polish nation including murder of women and children. That offends other contributors. The responses by Icewhiz [72],[73] do not make sense (my reply [74]).

• [75] - Icewhiz removes "communist" everywhere to put the blame for crimes on Poles, rather than on the oppressive communist regime created by USSR.

• Icewhiz removes sourced information about political repression against Polish population [76],[77],[78],[79],[80], [81][82],[83],[84],[85]. Icewhiz tells it was "just" ethnic cleansing, not genocide (discussion). Not according to some academic RS [86], [87].

• [88] (see text removed at the bottom of the diff) - removal of sourced information about anti-Polish sentiment in Israel with misleading edit summary.

WP:Battle to get rid of content "opponents"

[89],[90] - Icewhiz tells he submitted this case to remove content included by inactive Poeticbent. In his early Evidence Icewhiz suggests sanctions of VM, Piotrus, Xx236, Poeticbent , GizzyCatBella, Tatzref and MyMoloboaccount, i.e. all contributors with whom he had content disagreements.

Unsubstantiated accusations

• Icewhiz said this (“a redline conduct issue”) meaning this edit by VM who just removed one of two words "Polish" in same phrase. Icewhiz refused to explain [91]. But this triggered the response by VM [92]. A reason to topic-ban VM or a ridiculous accusation by Icewhiz?

• Icewhiz claims wikistalking by VM. He asks VM not follow his edits and starts editing numerous pages on Polish history. No wonder, VM appears on these pages (as anyone would expect [93]), but his edits serve to improve the content. Even in reverts [94] he asks "Please explain specific concerns on talk". And what Icewhiz does? Start talking? No. Note that VM agreed with versions by Icewhiz when they are NPOV and supported by RS [95] proving that VM acted in good faith; [96] - VM removed antisemitic content.

VM: PA, ASPERSIONS and assumptions of bad faith

• Accusation of conducting a "smear campaign": [97][98]
• Frequent accusations of falsifying sources ("making shit up"), which he readily admits: [99]
• Accusations of misleading editors: [100][101][102]
• An "all in one": [103]

Past warnings: [104][105]

VM: OR or suggestions of OR

• Removing, or supporting the removal of sources deemed "Communist"/"Stalinist" with no supporting evidence: [106][107] (unless they support his position [108]). The first is also a borderline BLPTALK violation - 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: [109][110]

VM: BATTLEGROUND

• Filing a superfluous AE at the eve of an ARBCOM case: [111]

Xx236: BLPTALK

• [112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119]

Xx236: PA

• [120][121][122][123][124][125] [126]

MyMoloboaccount: Sourcing

• Misrepresented sources about the Czech Republic [127] and the de facto post-war situation [128] as if they're about international law applying to Poland (third citation was malformed, so I couldn't verify it [same diff]). Both are also "cherry picks", immediately followed by exceptions.
• They also added several news sources for the same purpose, then stonewalled questions on their credibility.[129][130][131][132]
• "Cherry picking": [133][134]

MyMoloboaccount: Bias and POV pushing

• "Poles are good": [135][136][137][138][139]
• "Jews are bad": [140][141][142][143]

Tatzref: ASPERSIONS

• Repeated ASPERSIONS against Icewhiz and K.e.coffman of "concocting a bogus attempt to discredit [a source]",[144][145][146] despite being refuted twice.[147][148]

Tatzref: Sourcing

• Misrepresenting sources throughout this discussion (in particular from this message onwards; Icewhiz's and my comments follow, with source readouts further down [149][150]). This later evolved to a BLP violation.[151]
• Copied citations from a banned source.[152] Case was closed without prejudice.[153]

Overview: Balance and Consensus

Assuming the Wikipedia process works, repeated application of the process will approach neutrality. Thus, a good way to establish editors' neutrality is to examine their involvement in the community process, and particularly in votes. We can use the percentage of editors' votes that accorded with the consensus as a measure: the more frequently an editor voted with the consensus, the more neutral they are assumed to be. Adjusting for discussions where a proposal's impact 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:

For example, my votes accorded with the tallied consensus in 66.7% of the 12 votes I took part in, or 83.3% when adjusted for impact. Mind this isn't the whole picture: RSN, BLPNB, FTN and NOR discussions aren't formally tallied, so I encourage you to review these as well.

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)[reply]

I have given a brief overview of some selected moments both editors had. If this completely is 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)[reply]

VM's history (Arbcom)

On 3 November 2010, Volunteer Marek requested [154] and was granted [155] an account rename citing personal privacy. [156]

Party to WP:EEML

In Eastern European mailing list, after being opened by motion, [157] Volunteer Marek was added as a party. [158]

This ultimately led to a finding of fact, an admonishment and a sanction against the editor (the admonishment was to all participants). [159]

Sanction rescinded

On 21 June 2010, the committee removed its previous sanction against the editor. [160]

This was after a previous motion to amend the case that narrowed the topic ban having been enacted. [161]

Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. [162] It was closed with a note to seek dispute resolution in the future. [163]

Both topic banned for battleground

An AE request was filed by Icewhiz. [164] This request was m=ade after a then-recent AE filling against Icewhiz. [165]

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. [166]

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. [167] It was closed with no action. [168]

Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

Closing

A lot has been said... [169] [170] going back at least a year. [171] [172] [173] [174]
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)[reply]

WP:AE

Re: [175]
​There were actually too many AE reports for me to go through. [176] [177] [178] My apologies if I left that bit out a bit of context. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative and inflammatory dits by Icewhiz

As along standing user who has written articles on Holocaust i.e 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 provking other editors.Edits often include ethnic based remarks and inflammatory statements rather than constructive work on encyclopedia.

• 1.Comparing Poland to Iran and North Korea similar to the Iranian or North Korean media being unreliable on their respective supreme leaders

• 2.Here [179] Icewhiz claims 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 stated "dissenters and elites"It's hard not to see this response as bait attempt or provocation.

• 3.[180] Icewhiz removes information about Polish rescue of Jews under the title "remove Polish rescue myth".

• 4.Poland is not a large country, and its academic footprint is not large either, furthermore history in Poland seems to have become something that is managed by the government. It would seem that Polish denialists, who deny Poland's complicity in the holocaust, and attempt to propagate various myths (the latest was a proposal to open a "polocaust" musuem displaying Poles as the main victims of the Holocaust)

• 5.[181]Icewhiz falsified a source stating that villagers massacred by Soviet partisans were supposedly hunting down Jews.There is nothing about Naliboki village on page 280. I uploaded a screenshot from the source in question showing that there is nothing about villagers attacking Jews on page 280[182].Icewhiz then claimed the statement s is on page 283. Here is the screen of page 283-nothing about inhabitants of Naliboki village doing such a thing[183].Falsification.

• 6.Controversial claim [184] Polish airmen in the UK even plotted flying to bomb Buckingham palace and parliament)Icewhiz sourced this Najwyższy Czas!. Why did he do so if he himself was adding information that NajwyzszyCzas! is highly unreliable source?[185]This seems a clear case of POV pushing and inflamming the discussion using unreliable source.Icewhiz was aware of this as he edited article on NCz!.

• 7.[186] Here Icewhiz states that Ethnic Poles were responsible for killing and capturing Jews, the book describes actions by Ukrainian and Belarussian villagers as well, yet Icewhiz edits the article to state only "ethnic Poles".Contrast this with this edit:[187]Operation in which ethnic Poles were targetted for executions(and were majority of victims)-Poles are removed and replaced it with "people".
• 8.[188] Complete blanking of whole article about Stalinist criminal, including list of atrocities, the article had several reliable sources including Cambridge University Press publication.
• 9.[189]Icewhiz removed information that Poles were target of genocide by Nazi Germany claiming "unsupported by source".I have uploaded the screenshot of the source ,it does state that there was genocide[190].
• 10."He's advancing polocaust, which is quite fringey" Ethnic based deregatory term about Nazi Germany genocide against Polish people. .
• 11.Obviously, it is possible to find polophilic writers in English Ethnic based attack to discredit source.
• 12.[191]Stating that Polish anti-Nazi resistance group is responsible for deaths of 100,000-200,000 Jews, using a quote that doesn't even have anything about Home Army in it.
• 13.[192]Stating that Polish civilians attacked in massacres and raids by Soviet and Jewish partisans were engaging in theft of Jewish property.
• 14.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.
• 15.Here[193] in an article about anti-Polish sentiment Icewhiz removes a racist insult used as an example(sourced to BBC) 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"
• 16.Here[194] Icewhiz claimed scholars state 500,000 Jews were murdered by Poles

Icewhiz provocative editing is not limited to Polish topics

In article about Lehi, a terrorist organization calling for anihiliation of Arab people, seeking alliance with Nazi Germany, Icewhiz tried to delete information about it's links with Nazis[195], claimed that lead should have views "of those who justify it"[196]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

Summmary

Icewhiz presents extreme claims(Poland=Nazi Germany, Polish people=mass murderers of Jews), uses inflammatory language,is unable to compromise with other users in the topic of Polish-Jewish relations and WW2, defends extreme terrorist organizations such as Lehi.His edits are very tendentious, and represent extreme POV.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 mentioned several times on this page with diffs to several of my edits, I will presented a rebuttal in the analysis of evidence section in the workshop.

Possible BLP violations in lead

• by Icewhiz: "far-right political activist", BLP discussion, "far-right", add Category:Polish Holocaust deniers, [197] (undue criticism in main body of a short article)
  • one of the BLP subjects in question became aware of some of this and wrote an essay in Tygodnik Solidarność complaining about Icewhiz: [198]
• by Francois: nationalist, right-wing activism, anti-Semitism, similar, far-right activist

POV editing

Minimizing Polish WWII-era suffering and stressing Polish misdeeds.

AfDs of (mostly) Polish-Jewish topics related to pro-Polish POV, often content created by Poeticbent:

kept

• Gunnar S. Paulsson
• Irene Tomaszewski
• John Radzilowski
• Leszek Gondek
• Józef Turowski
• Public execution in Dębica

deleted

• Anna Poray
• Leszek Pietrzak
• Zdzisław Zakrzewski
• Szczepan Siekierka
• Marcin Urynowicz

Removal of information about Polish rescuers from ghetto articles (this information was often added by Poeticbent using a source Icewhiz complained about on FTN (no consensus...), sometimes he used low quality sources but almost all of it can be sourced to googlable RS as demonstrated below. It is not a red flag, so why is it being removed?):

• Brzesc ghetto: removal of information, including referenced, under the claim it is uncited, much of it restored later by me and VM with better sources
• Grodno ghetto: removal of sentence summarizing the rescue claiming OR,
• Kielce ghetto: removal of references, then removal of "uncited" information, my restoration with RS
• Łódź Ghetto: removes mention of rescuer Stanisława Leszczyńska, my restoration with RS
• Lubartów Ghetto: removal or references then removal of "uncited" content, my restoration with RS
• Międzyrzec Podlaski Ghetto: removal of references, my restoration with RS
• Nowy Sącz Ghetto: removal of references, my restoration with RS
• Piotrków Trybunalski Ghetto: removal of refs my restoration with RS
• Radom Ghetto: removal of refs, removal of content, my restoration with RS
• Sambor ghetto: removal of ref content, my restoration with RS
• Siedlce Ghetto: removal of ref content
• Slonim Ghetto: removal of ref my restoration with RS.
• Sosnowiec Ghetto: removal of content, my restoration with RS
• Stanislawow Ghetto: removal of ref content. my restoration with RS

While removing information on Polish rescue efforts, Icewhiz adds information on Polish collaboration with the Nazis (which, for the record, nobody challenges).

JUST DYK, where several editors, myself included, raised concerns about neutrality of the hook Icewhiz proposed that unduly focused on "Polish nationalists". I proposed a more neutral hook there which Icewhiz did not accept as "Not hooky", the DYK has failed. Also see this DYK nom: compare the neutrality of hook/alts proposed by me and User:Pharos and the ALT3 proposed by Icewhiz.

Attempt to get the ArbCom to declare all Polish sources on Polish-Jewish history unreliable

Icewhiz (rightly) criticizes Polish right-wing media as unreliable - but will use them if they serve his POV: [199]. Same with FR [200]

Whitewashing: removal of academic source that mentions some Jewish collaborations with the Soviets as "primary accounts used to promote a canard in Wikipedia's voice". Here and here, removal of other content about Jewish collaboration.

Response to rebuttal of the above: there are probably better (less battleground-inducing) ways to combat the "ignoble ungrateful Jew stereotype" then doing exactly what it suggests, i.e. denying/minimizing the role of Polish rescuers. Particularly where almost all of the removed content that was using substandard refs contained uncontroversial statements of facts, no REDFLAG opinions or claims, and could have been easily verified with better ones (it took me just few hours in a single day to do so). If Icewhiz tried to fix the content rather than remove it, i.e. tried to mend faces rather then to burn them, we would be much less likely to have this case here.

I support Piotrus

I fully support Piotrus. Serious editors shouldn't be expelled by fanatics.Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The topis of the ban was the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland. Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) We don't need biased press articles on the subject.Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust

The Holocaust was designed and implemented by Germans. Transferring responsibility from German and Austrian Nazis to poor terrorized peasants is a form of Holocaust revisionism. Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania

The Lithuanians who murdered Jews murdered also Poles, eg. in Ponary massacre. If Icewhiz writes about Lithuanian crimes, he - once more - ignores Polish victims. Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Although it appears Icewhiz withdrew his claim that Musial’s book was self published, he continued to maintain it was “fringe” and claimed repeatedly that it was “widely criticized” and “very criticized,” even though many historians had hailed it as an important work (Yehuda Bauer, Karel Berkhoff, Björn M. Felder, Zdzislaw Winncki). When challenged to provide proof, Icewhiz failed to do so. (Talk on Bielski Partisans.)

Tatzref (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. ---Removed to fit a word limit. See page history-- 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)[reply]

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".[201] 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: [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209]

Also: [210] (Ewa Kurek), [211] (Nasz Dziennik).

Tatzref added WP:PUFFERY to Canadian Polish Congress - [212][213] - 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 [214][215][216] (reliable sources on enwiki removed by Volunteer Marek), was removed by User:Pinkbeast: [217]. Icewhiz then reintroduced it: [218], 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: [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227]. Also AE: [228], [229], [230], [231], [232].

My Very Best Wishes - Volunteer Marek prior arbitration request

My Very Best Wishes and Volunteer Marek's alleged tag teaming was the subject of a previous arbitration request in 2016. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate statement by Icewhiz

[233] (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)[reply]

I pinged Icewhiz in my above post, and they rectified their statement accordingly (13:33, 12 June 2019), striking confirmed and inserting likely. [234]. No other comments from me at this point. starship.paint (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP's invited to edit and change Jewish to Polish

In the ANI thread linked above, and here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#MOS:ETHNICITY_on_articles_about_Polish_Jews about MOS:Ethnicity, there was an edit highlighting a Tweet [235] on the Rafal Ziemkiewicz page. The very bad Google translations is as follows, "A week has passed, during which several English-language Wiki admins arms "polish" Rumkowski, withdrawn edits, raised the level of blockage And what's going on in these changes shows the removal (23.05) by the next admin ("I am a Jew") distinguish "nationality" and "citizenship"" After that tweet, we saw an influx of IP's and other accounts coming out of the woodworks to edit in this area to change Jew/Polish.

François Robere casting aspersions

I think that François Robere (talk · contribs) should have been added as a party. According to Xtools, FR has been one of the most active editors in the topic area. 295 edits in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (941 talk-page edits!), 87 edits in Collaboration with the Axis Powers, 48 edits in Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017, 44 edits in Żegota, 41 edits in Jan Grabowski (historian) etc. A lot of these edits are edit-warring.

FR has been (quoting from a recent AE thread by Volunteer Marek):

1. 22:05 26 Feb 2019 Warned in the topic area for casting aspersions
2. 22:21 26 Feb 2019 Blocked in the topic area for personal attacks
3. 12:45 18 March 2018 Blocked by in the topic area, with talk page access subsequently revoked [236], note also the relevant discussion at WP:3RR [237].

FR characterized Poeticbent's deletion of content in a content dispute as "vandalism" on their talkpage and threatened to take them to AN/I: [238]

In a recent RS/N thread FR stated that talking about Jews and money is obviously antisemitic (but don't take my word for it, the message is more nuanced). However, there is a plethora of academic papers about Jews and money lending in the medieval period at Google Scholar. The topic is not "obviously" antisemitic. Aspersions of antisemitism are serious.

I urge editors to look at edit warring in these articles in early 2018 especially at "Polish death camp" controversy. --Pudeo (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Ice Whiz

I just want to express my gratitude to Ice Whiz for his work on articles about the Holocaust in Lithuania, such as on Jonas Noreika. Here in Lithuania, there is an information war taking place on the subject of the Holocaust in Lithuania. On June 15, 2018, Grant Gochin submitted his Query Regarding Jonas Noreika's Criminal Gang to Lithuania's Genocide Centre, along with a letter of support from Noreika's granddaughter Silvia Foti. They were attacked by the Lithuanian government and dozens of articles in the Lithuanian press, but had the support of the international media. Finally, on June 6, 2019, Lithuanian public television LRT was the first Lithuanian media to interview Silvia Foti in a half-hour show. Meanwhile, it seems that a rogue troll (Alkas Paltarokas of VilniusLifeStyle) working with the Lithuanian Army's Strategic Communications Department has portrayed Wikipedia as unreliable because I had made 11 edits (!) to a Jonas Noreika article in the course of 8 years. (They made no effort to fix those pages, either!) And "unreliable" Wikipedia articles were considered a major priority by a Lithuanian consultant working on reducing the spread of disinformation for the Lithuanian Chancellor. That consultant cited TrueLithuania.com (which produces propaganda like this) as "best practices" to learn from. These agencies have not reached out to those who think differently, like me. The Lithuanian Army has not replied to my letters. I am sharing this to provide a sense of context. A great step forward recently is support by the Kazickas Foundation for indexing Lithuanian testimonies about the early days of the Holocaust. They previously seem to have been funding deniers of Lithuanian crimes against humanity, such as Vidmantas Valiušaitis, and perhaps still do. AndriusKulikauskas (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz identified problematic content & sourcing

The impetus for these disputes was the January 2018 amendment to a Polish law criminalising certain statements about the Holocaust in Poland. This generated extensive media coverage [239] [240], a spike in views for related Wiki-pages [241], and an influx of new editors.

A stable area doesn't mean neutral or accurate, so lack of disputes prior to 2018 isn't meaningful. See Icewhiz's evidence: #Jewish welcome & #1941 pogroms. (My impression was similar; e.g. the Pinsk Ghetto article, which seemingly subscribed to the "Jew-Bolshevik-Partisan" construct of Nazi propaganda: [242], or Lviv pogroms (1941): Juxtaposition.) These articles aren't well-trafficked so such errors, fabrications, and biases linger.

Icewhiz engages with the arguments by others and provides sourced counter-arguments (although at times too many/overlong). He launched several RSN discussions/RfCs, including: RSN:Mark Paul & Ewa Kurek; RfC:Mark Paul; and RfC:Jewish Baiting Techniques.

VM unnecessarily personalized disputes

VM has behaved in an aggressive and belittling manner towards others, using article TPs/edit summaries to accuse them of: lying [243]; being hysterical [244]; edit warring/dishonesty [245]; holding consensus hostage/sabotaging productive dialog [246]; being offended by sources positive towards Poland [247]; and losing it [248]. I've discussed with VM previously, suggesting he use RfCs/admin boards instead, but without success:

• "Call for decorum", June 2018
• "Article Talk Pages", March 2019

Tatzref promoted fringe POV

I endorse #Evidence presented by Stefka Bulgaria about Tatzref. I submitted similar evidence to AE in February 2019; my conclusion was: "an on-going and problematic pattern of advocacy-based editing and promotion of fringe theories": AE statement.

"Mark Paul", affiliated with Canadian Polish Congress, for which Tatzref appears to be a SPA, advocates the idea that Jews in the Soviet occupation zone (1939-41) were de facto Nazi collaborators; see here: Paul's thesis. Tatzref does as well: [249], bottom of diff: "Collaborating with one of these states in furthering these goals constituted de facto collaboration with the other."

Removing unsuitable sources has been challenging

See disputes around the fringe/anon/self-published author "Mark Paul". Tatzref defended Paul in this RfC: "Even if SOME of Mark Paul’s views may not be mainstream, overall Mark Paul meets the test of reliability. Moreover, there is no Wikipedia policy that bans non-mainstream views..." [250], prompting a rebuttal from RfC closer: [251]. Piotrus suggested Paul be kept for "non-controversial claims" [252], missing the point that a self-published/anon work is major red flag. In a TP thread, Piotrus stated:

• "I am not convinced this stuff [Paul] is unreliable" [253]
• "I agree that Chodakiwiecz and others named represents one side in this debate, but to me he is no less reliable, and no more POVed, then for example Michlic (and Grabowski and Gross)" [254], putting these highly questionable sources on the same plane with mainstream historians such as Jan T. Gross.

Paul was also discussed at RSN: [255], while SPLC-profiled Marek Jan Chodakiewicz and SPS Anna Poray are still debated. The AfD on the latter (closed as "delete") is worth reading: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anna_Poray.

Sourcing/civility restriction has worked in the past

See DS-notice at Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland, expanded following AE:François Robere. The sourcing requirement was: "Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers...". The article stabilised soon after.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

This is tangled. If not for the involvement of established and respected editors on both sides, it wouldn't have lasted so long; the others essentially "pile on" imo. Overall one side feels the other exaggerates the negative aspects of Polish behavior vis-a-vis Jews especially 1939-40s; side 2 sees whitewashing of general Polish treatment of Jews.

I maintain that the accusations of Jewish "whitewashing" of claimed mistreatment of Poland is a secondary aspect, but played a significant destabilizing role. Early skirmishes between VM and Icewhiz disproportionately focus here ([not so many edits], [and viewership spiking specifically when there's a controversy on wikipedia]). With [analysis] we can see that aside from project pages, the most heavy are those of historians on the Jewish/Polish issue and 1940s massacres. We can see from [| the history] that after unrelated US/MidEast editing, VM/Icewhiz conflict begins in February 2018 on "Polish death camp" controversy and Jedwabne massacre, then other masscres. [[256]] shows one trigger of future issues: Icewhiz doesn't want "Soviet and Jewish partisans", it emphasizes the Jewish background of certain communist murderers. I will not pretend to be impartial here, but I do assume that the "Polish" side didn't aim to blame Jews for Soviet Russia's actions, but instead to explain the reactions of some Poles as being motivated by something aside from classical antisemitism; nevertheless this inevitably lends weight to familiar "Jewish-Bolshevik" canaries. A similar later fight concerned the "Jewish treachery/ingratitude" canary, seen in Paradisus Iudaeorum -- perhaps for some enlightened Poles this view of history is a source of pride, but its darker side essentially blames not only the "Hell" for peasants but also later traumas on Jews and other "foreign residents". Polish rescues are notable but perhaps we didn't need to have the "rescue" given as much weight [as the ghetto's existence].

...but if you protest this inevitably (understandably) come off as anti-Polish. Icewhiz' edit summaries defending the placement of survivors' views about actions by Poles are the likely source for repeated PAs that he's anti-Palish. Icewhiz has also made extensive contributions that positively portray certain Poles, like creating this. When he is "anti-Polish" it is consistently where Polish heroism is being emphasized on articles also about Polish not-so-heroism. Was there a lack of balance favoring the defensive Polish POV? I'd say yes. User_talk:K.e.coffman#Experiment:_Sambor_Ghetto Here's a good snapshot of the problem. Again the disproportionate "rescue" emphasis and clear concern for the viewpoint of the Polish rescuer -- but the event in question was not about Polish rescue, but rather Jewish death (see also: White savior). And then we see little about Ukrainian rescuers even if Sambir is in Ukraine. I won't speculate on how this happened but my general prognosis is that Jewish-focused editors tried to fix these, and were misunderstood. The topic area was in fact infested with problems including anti-Semitic hoaxes. Many have been mentioned. Here are a few more. [This "Jewish" Soviet welcome poster hoax] [that Icewhiz had to repeatedly remove...]. [A side of source falsification.] Here's one about the how Polish nobility had to "ransom" money to free the poor Slav Christians enslaved by Jews [[257]]. It took till June 3 2019 for the picture of Adalbert freeing alleged enslaved Christians from Jews (at the top of the page, one the first picture the reader sees...) to be removed [[258]]. It had been on the page, apparently untouched for 7 years; when it was added though of course it had the less farcical description -- "Adalbert accuses Jews of slavery"[[259]].--Calthinus (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing three examples, there are many more possible but word limits are strict.

• Poeticbent adds Steiner's "novelization" of history in 2013. In 2016 Poeticbent created the article on Steiner including as a source this critique of Steiner - but Poeticbent didn't remove Steiner as a source. As late as November 2018 it was still used at least twice.
• See here where User:MyMoloboaccount admits that they copied information into the one article from another without copying over all the references which is an example of bad editing practices.
• Here VM restores and tweaks this sentence "The coordinated actions of the Soviet NKVD and the Communist Party in 1937–1938 against the Polish minority living in the Soviet Union, representing only 0.4 percent of Soviet citizens, amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention, concluded historian Michael Ellman." - but Ellman doesn't actually conclude this. Ellman says (p. 686) (I stripped out parentheticals and sources) "...there are other actions of Team-Stalin in the 1930s that might well qualify as genocide as defined in the UN Convention. In particular this concerns the ‘national operations’ of 1937–38. Of these, the ‘Polish operation’... There are three objections to treating the ‘Polish operation’ as genocide. The first is that NKVD order no. 00485 of 11 August 1937 does not explicitly target Poles as such, ... However, in implementing order 00485, NKVD officers interpreted it as an order to arrest Poles. In its implementation it was predominantly an example of killing people based on their ethnicity. The second objection to treating the ‘Polish operation’ as genocide is that only a minority of Soviet Poles were victims of it. ... Whether this is enough to meet the UN Convention criterion of ‘in whole or in part’ depends on the interpretation of ‘in part’. The third objection is that many of those sentenced in the ‘Polish operation’ were not in fact ‘Poles’. Since no legal tribunal to try the crimes of Stalinism has been established, there is as yet no authoritative ruling on the legal characterisation of the ‘Polish operation’ and the other ‘national operations’ of 1937–38." Ellman (p. 690) states "The ‘national operations’ of 1937–38, notably the ‘Polish operation’, may qualify as genocide as defined by the UN Convention, although there is as yet no legal ruling on the matter." These are the only mentions of the Polish operation. This is not a strong enough statement to state in Wikipedia voice that Ellman concluded that this was an ethnic cleansing - Ellman doesn't discuss ethnic cleansing in connection to Poles. Also, the citation is given as "Michael Ellman, "Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited." Amsterdam School of Economics. PDF file". But it's not published by the Amsterdam School of Economics - its a published journal article hosted on http://www.paulbogdanor.com and it is unclear if the site has permission to host it. (Original publication here.) Per WP:EL, we should not link to possibly copyright infringing sites.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.