Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence: Difference between revisions
→IBan between Levivich and Volunteer Marek: statement. |
|||
Line 2,023: | Line 2,023: | ||
===IBan between Levivich and Volunteer Marek=== |
===IBan between Levivich and Volunteer Marek=== |
||
I placed the IBan between the two of them due to both of their behavior in discussions with one another. In retrospect I should have stepped in with a lighter touch during their discussion [[User_talk:Levivich/Archive_4#Jew_with_a_coin|on Levivich's talk page]], but I didn't and it escalated to their back and forth at the signpost talk page where Levivich made a severe PA. Looking at the situation, I wasn't going to just block or otherwise sanction Levivich as their behavior was the result of a series of adversarial back and forths, where Volunteer Marek was also being uncivil. I didn't think a warning was sufficient in this case, as Volunteer Marek's behavior seems to have been unchanged after being [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1133691551&diffmode=source warned], and as the behavior of both editors was at issue an uneven sanction wouldn't be a fair move. Since the disruption was centered around a topic that was currently before arbcom I enacted the IBan so that they could hash things out in the correct venue, rather than elsewhere on en.wiki where there would be no benefit to their discussions. Sorry this is short, but I am very busy IRL and sick as a dog. I just wanted to get this in before the deadline, as it was brought up. |
I placed the IBan between the two of them due to both of their behavior in discussions with one another. In retrospect I should have stepped in with a lighter touch during their discussion [[User_talk:Levivich/Archive_4#Jew_with_a_coin|on Levivich's talk page]], but I didn't and it escalated to their back and forth at the signpost talk page where Levivich made a severe PA. Looking at the situation, I wasn't going to just block or otherwise sanction Levivich as their behavior was the result of a series of adversarial back and forths, where Volunteer Marek was also being uncivil. I didn't think a warning was sufficient in this case, as Volunteer Marek's behavior seems to have been unchanged after being [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1133691551&diffmode=source warned], and as the behavior of both editors was at issue an uneven sanction wouldn't be a fair move. Since the disruption was centered around a topic that was currently before arbcom I enacted the IBan so that they could hash things out in the correct venue, rather than elsewhere on en.wiki where there would be no benefit to their discussions. Sorry this is short, but I am very busy IRL and sick as a dog. I just wanted to get this in before the deadline, as it was brought up. |
||
==Evidence presented by HaeB== |
|||
===Volunteer Marek's rebuttal misrepresents Grabowski and Klein's paper=== |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2FNewsroom&diff=prev&oldid=1143160070&diffmode=source Here], VM accuses G&K of a "lie" about his edits in the [[Naliboki massacre]] article, omitting the fact that they back up their assertion with a diff link (footnote 92). See more details [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&diff=prev&oldid=1143390269 here]. |
|||
This is not only suitable to mislead the community about the general validity of the paper, but also (regarding the allegation of a "lie", i.e. a deliberate untruth) a [[WP:ASPERSION]] and [[WP:BLP]] problem. |
|||
===Volunteer Marek engages in incivil attacks and in casting aspersions=== |
|||
E.g. |
|||
"you've completely lost the plot" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&diff=prev&oldid=1143217205], "a bad junior high school essay" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2FNewsroom&diff=prev&oldid=1143104538&diffmode=source], "gushing cringy" and Icewhiz comparisons (a WMF-permabanned editor) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2FNewsroom&diff=prev&oldid=1143316908&diffmode=source]. |
|||
===Piotrus' rebuttal misrepresents Grabowski and Klein's paper === |
|||
*In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Piotrus/Response&oldid=1148947423#4._Unreliable_sources section 4.2] ("On Lukas' [book] The Forgotten Holocaust", Piotrus acccuses Grabowski and Klein of a {{tq|1=False claim about "sea of praise") [...] The authors write that: “By portraying Engel’s opinion as a lone dissenter in a sea of praise, Piotrus massaged the Wikipedia article to show Lukas in a positive light.”, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Forgotten_Holocaust&oldid=957108751 the book article entry I indeed wrote (May 2020 version linked) included] other critical or mixed reviews as well}}. |
|||
** However, Piotrus omits that G&K are referring to the [[WP:LEDE]] of the article, citing (in footnote 106, pointing to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_C._Lukas&type=revision&diff=949387337&oldid=949263322]) Piotrus' assessment that {{tq|It has received a number of positive reviews, and a single dissenting critical review}}. I.e. the "lone dissenter" part is well-supported by the evidence. |
|||
*Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Piotrus/Response&oldid=1144199436#20._On_Chart_3 section 20] ("On Chart 3"): See my more detailed notes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2023-03-09%2FRecent_research&diff=1144181600&oldid=1144179116&diffmode=source here] (in particular Piotrus claiming that G&K {{tq|seem to have acknowledged [an] error}} whereas they had done nothing of the sort), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2023-03-09%2FRecent_research&diff=prev&oldid=1144208408&diffmode=source here] (in particular points 2) and 3) - claims that contradict the authors' own methodology description and selective quoting, both creating the appearance of G&K having made serious factual errors). |
|||
Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 23:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
Revision as of 23:58, 9 April 2023
Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)
Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023
Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk), Firefly (Talk), MJL (Talk), ToBeFree (Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk), Primefac (Talk), Wugapodes (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.
Evidence phases
- During the first evidence phase all evidence that relates to the scope of the case will be accepted. For the first week after the case opens, evidence may be submitted for the purpose of adding another party to the case.
- During the second evidence phase, only evidence that rebuts other evidence (see Rebuttals below) or which answers a question posed by an arbitrator will be allowed. Any evidence which does not meet this standard may be removed, collapsed, closed, or otherwise addressed by an Arbitrator or clerk without warning.
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.
- Evidence found to be pertinent by an Arbitrator or Clerk will be added to the /Summary page and collapsed here
- 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.Evidence that has been summarized and collapsed does not count against an editor's word or diff limits
- 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 /Analysis 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.
For additional information and context about the evidence phase, please see the Frequently Asked Questions
For questions or requests by the Arbitrators please see this section on the Analysis page.
Evidence presented by Adoring nanny
Having more editors is good for this topic area
Summarized at /Summary#Naliboki massacre
|
---|
In particular, the article Naliboki massacre was vastly improved by a recent series of edits by editors with different points of view. Version as of mid February[1]. Current version (March 13)[2]. The old version was borderline antisemitic. I don't see such issues with the current version, though others may differ. The old version left the question of the participation of Jewish partisans a bit mysterious, with a few hints of yes, and somewhat-stronger hints of no. The current version makes it clear that the allegation is unproven at best and probably false. The old version contained useless info about a commission not having completed its work as of years ago. The new version summarizes what they did. The collaboration was required. For example, I certainly could not have done it on my own as I don't speak Polish. That said, the differing points of view of the various editors, much of which involves issues I don't understand, is severe enough that it resulted in an AE thread[3] with some mild sanctions. Certainly some people were less than happy with each other. I do wish everyone would calm down. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by Ealdgyth
Introduction
|
---|
(2285 words) Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
First, a note of warning. I'm up to 28K words documenting inaccuracies that I've found in our articles on the Holocaust (not just in Poland, but also some of the more general topics) (and still working on it - I've only gotten about halfway through Treblinka extermination camp where I'm comparing much of the article to the sources and discovering that much doesn't support things - I've also done a lighter look at Extermination camp, Judenrat, and Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). Much of it is source-integrity issues and in a lot of cases, it's almost impossible to figure out who originally added the problem because so much reverting has gone on over the years as well as shuffling of text around without making sure the source citations stayed with things. So some of my evidence will be of a generalized nature - just showing how skewed or inaccurate our articles are without necessarily trying to "pin blame". I'll try to keep the evidence to the worst cases - rather than drive you all as insane as I'm feeling with discovering this massive problem. (Yes, I'm keeping a list of all the errors I'm finding and will fix them as the case concludes) (This section |
|
Summarized at Bibliography
|
---|
|
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Added 30 March 2023From Extermination camp - my full audit of the article is at User:Ealdgyth/Extermination camp audit. Note that I attempt to try to figure out who originally did the edit, but I do not claim to be an expert on diff excavation and I could be wrong on some of the "who did this" parts. The "this isn't supported"/"this is wrong"/"this isn't a reliable source" stuff though, I am confident of. I hadn't originally planned to introduce evidence relating to Poeticbent, but with the introduction of a long list of Icewhiz socks, I figured banned/retired editors were fair game.
|
Evidence presented by El_C
Volunteer Marek BLPCRIME vio (March 6, 2023)
Summarized at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Volunteer Marek
|
---|
During very lengthy discussion at Gitz6666's talk page, a discussion which I had noticed in passing and did not read in full, Volunteer Marek (VM) violated WP:BLPCRIME using shocking language (17:55, 5 March 2023 — admins only), which I immediately (Redacted) and revdeleted (22:22, 6 March 2023 — admins only). No further action (or a recommendation for one) was taken by me save for that urgent revdel, citing specifically this impending case. |
GizzyCatBella AE misuse (March 3, 2023)
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving GizzyCatBella
|
---|
A bit of background. A little while ago, new ArbCom member, GeneralNotability, dropped by my talk page to ask: Now, consider GizzyCatBella (GCB) at WP:AE#TrangaBellam (permalink). GCB is (or at least should be) very familiar with the AE board: as a filer, as a party, as a participant, as an appellant, etc. Her misuse in this AE complaint —a complaint featuring TrangaBellam, a content opponent of GCB's (I think?)— was that GCB had used double the number of diffs that's allowed: +40 instead of the max of 20 (05:46, 3 March 2023). The thing is I did actually get to it fast, stating only a couple of hours later that: |
Volunteer Marek disparages arbitrator Wugapodes at the WPO (March 20, 2023)
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The status of Wikipediocracy discussions as pertaining to this case, and their possible role as evidence, remains ambiguous. What isn't ambiguous, however, is VM using that venue today to publicly disparage arbitrator Wugapodes. The post in question reads (in full):
But at least it's "out in the open rather than happening behind the scenes"... Anyway, so are we pretending it's a secret, or, what are we doing? El_C 11:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
Volunteer Marek attempts to antagonize me at the WPO (March 23, 2023)
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In response to my above evidence submission, VM now seems to be attempting to antagonize me at the WPO (where I do not have an account). Normally, I could not care less, but I submit that him doing so in the midst of an active arbitration case to which he is party, is bad form. The post in question reads (in part):
For the record, I am neither "mad" nor do I wish to "police" the WPO, but again, I'd challenge that an active arbitration case to which he is party is different. El_C 04:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by GizzyCatBella
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving GizzyCatBella
|
---|
Responding to the accusation of misconduct (not trimming my diffs at AE) by EC_I:
|
About current threats broadcasted by the IP 199.7.159.46 ( see Evidence presented by LEvalyn): I addressed those recent joe-job attempts here including IP 199.7.159.46 (see my remarks at Maybe semiprotect that Signpost talk page): Background: I was followed on Wikipedia and harassed by Icewhiz's sock puppets for the last 3 years. (Icewhiz doesn't know my real identity, thank God) His sock-puppets (or sock-puppets of his pals) acted to be me in the past. That was the latest attempt. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Icewhiz socks
Summarised at /Summary#François Robere and Icewhiz
|
---|
Between 2019 and 2022, when Icewhiz was socking extremely laboriously. Francois Robere tag-teamed with him in both Holocaust in Poland, Israel-Palestine and other topic areas. Below is a list of tag-teaming and coordinated editing by Francois Robere, Icewhiz and related sock-puppets - shown on supportive interactions (less than two weeks, but usually much shorter)
Sock-puppet number 1 called Astral Leap (AL)Status - Checkuser block Interaction tool: [5]
Sock puppet number 2 called AstuteRed (AR)Status - Blocked as suspected sock-puppet of Icewhiz Interaction tool - [11]
Sock number 3 called Bob not snob (BnotS)Status - ArbCom blocked Interaction tool : [13]
Sock number 4 called I Dream of Maple (IDOM)Status - Blocked as sock-puppet of Icewhiz Interaction tool : [14]
Sock-puppet number 5 called 11Fox11 (1F1)Edits only occasionally the Holocaust in Poland topic area but nevertheless, Francois Robere collaborated and tag-teamed with them in this and other topic areas. Status - Checkuser block Interaction tool : [15]
Sock number 6 called KasiaNL (KNL)Status - Blocked as suspected sock-puppet of Icewhiz Interaction tool: [17]
Sock number 7 called Nyx86 (N86)Status - Checkuser block Interaction tool with FR: [18]
Sock number8 called JoeZ451 (JoeZ)Status: Blocked as Icewhiz or someone working with them Interaction tool with FR: [19]
Sock number 9 called Eostrix (EX)Status - Blocked by ArbCom (it was Icewhiz). This was the account that nearly became administrator. Interaction tool with FR: [20]
Sock-puppet number 10 called GeshemBracha (GB)Status - ArbCom block. Outside the Holocaust in Poland topic area. Interaction tool with FR - [21]
Sock-puppet number 11 IP 176.227.241.20 (176IP)Status - Blocked for socking with proxies Interaction tool with FR: [22]
Sock-puppet number 12 called Viking Drummer (VD)Status - Blocked for LTA Interaction tool with FR: [23]
There is more but I think the above illustrates the problem clearly enough. I'll follow up with something else if the time allows. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Answering Primefac's question - I couldn't find a single instance where FR and Icewhiz/socks disagreed. Only instances of supporting/cooperating with Icewhiz or other socks. They even stated at one point that they don't care if the material has been added by the Icewhiz sock and cooperated with Icewhiz's sock puppet called 007Леони́д see --> [25] or
or
[27] (Aug. 2021) or |
Summarized at François Robere and Volunteer Marek
|
---|
[29] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC) |
François Robere BLPs violations
Summarized at Contentious claims about living people
|
---|
Accusing BLPs of antisemitism:
|
- 7 - Jul. 6, 2021 BLP Violation -
comparing Kurek to the Holocaust denier
- GizzyCatBella🍁 12:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)- Is this last one the correct diff? The claim is followed immediately by a link to an article making that precise comparison. — Wug·a·po·des 21:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- That was meant as a BLP violation about Żaryn, not Kurek, I got confused. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Is this last one the correct diff? The claim is followed immediately by a link to an article making that precise comparison. — Wug·a·po·des 21:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Background to demonstrate François Robere’s previous troubling history
Summarised at /Summary#Sanctions_history
|
---|
François Robere block history
François Robere administrative warning history
Note Levivich comment that confirms that FR was redirecting the page to possibly attack VM -->[33] - |
This section deals with François Robere attacking/stalking/hounding me (GCB)
I asked them to stop following me around - they answered I'm not hounding you, I'm reviewing your edits (!)
Assurance that FR will avoid GizzyCatBella (RexxS comments):
- 1 - April 4, 2020
FR has already given assurances on their talk page that they will avoid you (GCB) and your contributions in future
- 2 - April 5, 2020
each of them have given assurances that they will disengage and avoid each other going forward
Despite the promise to avoid GCB, soon after, they (FR) continue to follow me:
On August 9 FR received IBan with me for showing up in this AE report (despite promises not to follow me) The IBan has been set as 2 way IBan only because some admins didn’t like one way IBans (see admin comments in the report) Important - It was FR who yet again followed me not the other way around. That was what triggered the IBAN.
Post IBan
- 17 June 2021 FR jumps into the conversation between another editor and me answered questions directed to me (GCB).
- 15 July 2021 block shopping despite being told earlier in March that WP:IBAN does not say that they can't comment on RfCs or the like.
- 21 July 2021 - FR is told again by the administrator
Please leave GCB alone
, like your Iban is supposed to do
Finally FR gets a blocked for violating IBan
Soon after resumes hounding me:
- refers to me on August 4, 2021 -
Ymblanter's action
(who blocked me)weren't done in a vacuum
- on October 4, 2021 follows me here referring indirectly to me (notice also an army of Icewhiz’s sock-puppets in that debate who (of course) are voting in line with FR)
- .. and violates IB again on Nov. 6 2021 by posting this note that refers to me asking Szmenderowiecki not to alter their comments here and Szmederowiecki’s response to me here This proves FR is still following everything I do.
- .. everything see this example --> on 23 April 2022 I only mention Cyprus Mail newspaper next day FR edits Cyprus Mail article
- .. and on Apr. 26 follows me here
- then follows me here (threading of discussion doesn’t make it obvious but FR showed up immediately after me)
- then follows me here
- then follows me here to this talk page 9 minutes after I posted my comment
- then I vote Support next day FR follows and votes Oppose
- then on Jan. 13 posts links that refer to me in his evidence that again violate his topic ban
And now the latest IBAN violation on Mar. 30, 2023 - My above examples demonstrate that the latest not great but not sanctionable were FR keeps violating, gaming and skirting the borders of his Iban with me isn’t an isolated incident and should actually become sanctionable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
This section deals with François Robere stalking and harassing MyMolobo
François Robere was also stalking and harassing MyMolobo. This is relevant particularly in the context of Molobo's dramatic statement shortly before he had a mental breakdown and left the project:
The continued harassment by Icewhiz, and wikipedia attacks by François Robere and to lesser extent Levivich has led to severe detoriation of my health, loss of my job and contributed to eventual mini stroke and hospital confimment. As such I have largely decided to leave Wikipedia.. Icewhiz and François Robere can congratulate themselves - I will no longer write on Wikipedia. Arbcom-please delete my account.
FR was warned that if he continues hounding and harassing MyMolobo:
Steps will have to be taken to ensure there's no repetition of that.
Below just a few examples of the above said hounding/harassment to illustrate the issue:
- 1 - December 9, 2019 follows MyMolobo to the article they never previously edited, not even about the Holocaust and reverted and here
- 2- Dec. 11, 2019 collapsing MyMolobo’s comment (behaviour that is close to removing the comment) This incident isn’t isolated, FR collapses comments of VM as well.
- 3 - This is an example of the personal attack on MyMolobo calling his edits dishonest
Here are more evidence of following MyMolobo to articles FR never edited before (on the same day - 3 different articles)
- 4 - April 1, 2020
- 5 - April 1, 2020
- 6 - and again [34] a completely different article FR never edited before.
- 7- April 2, 2020 FR restoring Molobo’s comment (that MyMolobo removed) - that comment was Molobo’s request for FR to stop stalking him
- 8 - May 19, 2020 FR removes German from the phrase Nazi Germany (sentence Molobo entered) and that was the whole point in that sentence. Obvious provocation.
- 6 - and posts this sarcasm telling MyMolobo that
Wikipedia is not worth you health
(encouraging MyMolobo leave) MyMolobo responds to FR sarcastic coment -You have been repeatedly asked to stop harassing me...
]
Finally MyMolobo left the project in a dramatic fashion. 😔 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
This section deals with François Robere personal attacks
Against me:
- On Nov. 10, 2019 FR calls me lazy ..... I expressed concerns on FR’s talk page. FR simply erases my plea.
- On Mar. 30, 2020 FR calls me playing coy
- On May 30, 2020 FR call me paranoid
Against Piotrus:
- 30 Apr. 2020 Personal attacks and insinuations of anti-Semitism - see the link to Piotr’s plea to refactor
- June 3, 2020 towards Piotrus don’t play surprised
Against VM:
- Feb. 2, 2021 keep your sass to yourself - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
This section deals with François Robere’s hypocrisy
FR is using not allowed sources if they fit his POV or removes them if they don’t, citing WP:APLRS.
- Oct. 10, 2019 Uses You-Tube as a source that suits his POV. Note that YouTube is not allowed under WP:APLRS
but
- on Nov. 20, 2019 - FR removes newspaper as a source citing in edit summary
Sourcing restrictions on topic area see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations
- on Jan. 20, 2020 FR again removes Polish newspaper as a source (link below)
but
- on January 27, 2020 he adds TV France24.com and newspaper despite clear post on KL Warsaw talk page "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES” --> [35]
He is well aware of sourcing expectations in this topic area, but what is added or removed depends on what he likes.
Other of FR
- 1- Added this Despite clear opposition on the talk page (Jesus Christ King of Poland-->[36] This was very clearly POINTless BAITing.
- 2 - Removal of tags with no explanation
- 3 - Reverted not sourced/sources misrepresented and possible BLP violation- (article FR never edited before) to Icewhiz’ version (FR restored false information to banned Icewhiz version)
- 4 - removes tag again (issue never addressed)
- 5 - Misrepresents sources. Here is a how explained
- 6 - Battleground mentality - admits to Levivich that he is collecting diffs on VM and others
- 7 - Block shopping at Sandstein’s talk page, I was the editor who welcomed new users (see my edits dated one day before the date of the link below and my follow up comment)
There is much more, but I have no time for it. I recall most from my memory... However, I believe the above illustration demonstrates the problematic behaviour of FR very clearly and helps to reveal the real situation in this topic area. (The Holocaust in Poland). - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by LEvalyn
Battleground mentalities create a shockingly toxic editing environment
Summarized at /Summary#The Forgotten Holocaust
|
---|
My primary interest is in historical books. Following a request for input at WP Books, I went to the talk page for The Forgotten Holocaust. I made a small number of comments offering what I think were fairly unobjectionable suggestions, based on my expertise with book articles: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. For these comments, an anonymous threat was left on my talk page. You will see that I am accused of Slandering the reputation of Poland and lying about Jewish communist crimeseven though not one of my comments said anything about Poland or Jewish people. That escalation suggests a severe and deeply entrenched battleground mentality somewhere. This is the very first online threat of any kind I have received in my life, and I am not a young person. Something is very, very wrong here. I was already growing exhausted by the talk page when this threat occurred. Although the anonymous threat is the most alarming part, I would also observe the following troubling phenomena:
The key obstructive move I encountered was a large number of small claims that are so strange that they are hard to respond to. I question Piotrus' willingness or WP:COMPETENCE to evaluate appropriate sources in this context. I see very alarming behaviour from Piotrus, Nihil Novi, and GizzyCatBella, which will drive away constructive editors. And I think it would be well worth investigating the IP address of the anonymous threat I received. [signing retroactively, sorry ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)] |
Evidence presented by Zero0000
Threats. The stupid threats with deliberately stereotypical language left by 199.7.159.46 on the talk pages of multiple users just as this case opens is just so convenient. Since the only plausible effect of this trolling was to prejudice the case in the anti-Polish direction, the most likely explanation is that the troll intended exactly that. False flag, in other words, and I'm confident the committee won't fall for it. Zerotalk 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Response to LEvalyn. I studied Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust diff-by-diff starting at the first version edited by LEvalyn. It had been suggested that the article deserved a TNT because of Grabowski&Klein's attack on it, and LEvalyn agreed. (As an aside, I believe Wikipedia should never offload its responsibility for article content to an external person or group.) LEvalyn came to that talk page with the claim of being an expert on writing articles about books [44] but encountered resistance. What followed after that was a garden-variety non-toxic discussion about what the article should contain and what its structure should be. It is perfectly reasonable to have different opinions on how and how many book reviews should be mentioned in an article on a book. LEvalyn asserted: "any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book",[45] but that is not true; lots of mainstream history books get critical reviews and sometimes entire journal issues are devoted to debate about them. LEvalyn is concerned that the article might give someone a positive impression of the book.[46] LEvalyn's charges against Piotrus have no foundation; in fact Piotrus only offered fair opinion expressed politely. Agree with those opinions or not, they were not "long", nor "unconstructive", nor did they "misrepresent academic norms". It was Piotrus who asked for a 3O.[47] GCB's hanging offence was a single sentence suggesting that the article be expanded! In my opinion, LEvalyn did not identify any behavioral problems and the talk about driving people away is silly. Zerotalk 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence from Grabowski and Klein
Here I'll provide a few examples of charges made in the published essay of Grabowski and Klein (G&K) and the Wikipedia edits they refer to. My bolding throughout.
Case Study #1. The charge that editors promote Nazi stereotypes.
Summarised generally at /Summary#Article and response with similar evidence at the response by Piotrus
|
---|
From G&K:
Looking at the website we find it is a list of difficulties Polish Jews faced in hiding among gentiles, cited to Tec's book.[2] (Tec survived the Holocaust by posing as a Christian.) The relevant item is:
The history of this passage started when Jacurek copy-pasted the whole sentence from the website.[1] Moonriddengirl later flagged it as a copyvio, to which Piotrus responded by paraphrasing "physical characteristics of curly black hair, dark eyes, dark complexion, a long nose, were in special jeopardy" as "specific physical characteristics were particularly vulnerable". That's it, the whole story. Not only was Piotrus just performing a simple policy-demanded clean-up, he was actually removing the details of the stereotype. Moreover, both before and after the edit the sentence clearly does not say that Jews have particular physical characteristics, but only that Jews with those characteristics were in special danger. So there is nothing in the editorial sequence to support the title charge. There remains the question of compliance to the source. Here is the passage in Tec's book that the website sentence comes from:
This is not a great match to G&K's claim that "Tec never said that Jews looked different". But instead they quoted a different passage that appears to support them and introduces an explicit German connection. Let's look at the text immediately following the part they quoted:
In other words, Tec is just saying that many Jews could be identified by Poles but not by Germans. So that doesn't support G&K's claim that "Tec never said that Jews looked different" either. In summary, the charge is not supported either by the sequence of edits or by comparison with the source. |
Case Study #2. Explicit accusations of antisemitism
Summarised generally at /Summary#Article and response
|
---|
On page 8 of G&K's essay there is a summary of their overall thesis. I'll quote the part I want to comment on:
"Money-hungry Jews controlled or still control Poland" is indeed a classical antisemitic trope, and it would be a disgrace if Wikipedia promoted it. So we should look at G&K's evidence. However, G&K provide no example of this trope appearing in Wikipedia. I have been unable to locate one either. Since the trope as a whole does not appear, we can look for the individual parts and leave aside the question of whether it is valid to combine them.
References
|
Evidence presented by Piotrus
Response to LEvalyn
Moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Analysis and to be included in /Summary#The_Forgotten_Holocaust
|
---|
First, I want to thank LEvalyn for joining the discussion (the more editors become involved in related discussions, the better), and express my sadness that she has been subject to harassment by an IP. Second, I'd like to note that I indeed misundertood the invokation of WP:TNT and at first thought some editors are suggesting blanking this entire article without a discussion, because I've seen such issues occasionally brought up at AfD where I am a frequent contributor (at AfD, in my experience, invoking TNT means saying "this is a total mess, delete it, nothing to rescue"). Misunderstandings happen, but I believe I was respectful and polite, and when my misunderstanding was explained (that concerns were related to a particular section, not the entire article), I did not press the issue. Third, I tried to create a friendly-to-newcomers atmosphere by explicitly inviting people to make edits [48] |
Trust and Safety statement regarding my contributions to this project as well as harassment and blackmail intended to drive me away
Summarized at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Piotrus
|
---|
I would like to add to the public evidence information that I have been subject to a lenghty on- and off-wiki campaign of harassment that explicitly concerns the this topic area. The following is a quote from a statement by User:JEissfeldt (WMF) from meta:Trust and Safety, issued to me in a pdf format that I can send to any interested party. (bolding harassment description)
For additional context, I'll mention that the harasser directly stated, in messages to me that T&S and ArbCom are aware, that they indend to take control of this topic area through driving me (and other editors) away by, among others, destroying our reputation, on- and off-wiki, through media pressure. The blog mentioned refers to [49]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
Conduct of parties
- Original paragraph moved to talk page
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of Evidence involving Elinruby
|
---|
PS. Evidence is supposed to have diffs/links. Well, regarding the two newly added parties. Elinruby has been doing a tremendous job with verification of references and restructuring of content at Collaboration with the Axis powers, where according to current article statistics they account for a third or so of content and edits ([50]). This deserves a barnstar, not being a party to this clustercase. TrangaBellam has recently created four articles related to historiography of the topic (Glaukopis, Mariusz Bechta, Tomasz Greniuch and Marcin Zaremba). They are not perfect but we are better of with having them than with red links. I could go on, but the point is simple: while some debates might be a bit overheated, Wikipedia is improving. The solution to all problems is AGF, not A-boards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC) |
Off-wiki activities causing damage to Wikipedia require a response
Not summarised yet; slightly out-of-scope but could be used in tandem with future evidence. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
While I have, as stated above, no concerns about on-wiki behavior by any party, I do have concerns about off-wiki behavior. Specifically, I believe that Champansh’s essay violates our policies on off-wiki harassment (also seen here). Additional policies of concern include WP:Aspersions, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. While it was published off-wiki, per past ArbCom’s statements of principles, it is relevant. Framing this with the language from our policies: I feel “threatened and intimidated” by how her essay discusses me; I believe that the essay’s goal is to “make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for [me] and to undermine, frighten, or discourage [me] from editing”, and that it “was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community” (for example, the time I spent on this ArbCom case means time I spent not improving the encyclopedia, and the resulting media coverage has reduced my motivation to engage with the project). This is related to the previously submitted evidence that the goal of site-banned editor Icewhiz is to harass volunteers (myself, VM and others) to drive us away from this project. I want to note that:
Therefore, I submit that if we are not finding the claimed With regards to the numerous instances the essay violates our policies. First it makes many serious accusations such as repeated claims of Holocaust distortion and labelling me and others “distortionists”. I enumerate a number here (since they were made off-wiki, no diffs can be linked, and quoting them fully would put me over the evidence word count). |
Summarized at Article and response
|
---|
Second, for examples of factual errors concerning me and/or other editors, including a claim already judged as false by previous ArbCom case, see: 2 Case of Halibutt (Halibutt is accused of deliberatery introducing a hoax whereas Vorthax is more likely the culprit here), 6.3 False claim that I inserted criticism into Polonsky's biography (I did not), 14 Case of Poeticbent's photo (repeating a claim ‘’already’’ analyzed and discarded by ArbCom in 2019: Icewhiz interpreted an apparent error by Poeticbent as a deliberate hoax), 7.1 On the false claim of "Embellishing Kurek" (I just added a mixed review of her work to her biography), 8.3 On claim that Muszyński article "authored by Piotrus, continues to read as a list of accolades" (the stub I created listed one state award, and had a much longer section on a controversy surrounding him) or 17-18 Selective quotations (which suggest I defend/endorse some fringe scholars where in fact I am cautioning against their use). Third, the essay portrays me (and others) in a very one sided way, omitting numerous examples of where I criticized individuals described by the essay authors as nationalist/far-right, or where I praised/used as a source individuals described by the authors as mainstream scholars (even Grabowski himself), or where I added content that goes against the “heroic Polish narrative” or broadly defined “distortion”. See: 6.4 On omission of evidence that I and others cited or praised Polonsky and other scholars the authors accuse us of discrediting, 6.5 On omission of evidence that I and others criticized Kurek and other scholars the authors accuse us of idealizing, 7.2 On omission of evidence that I criticized Kurek, 8.2 On omission of evidence that I criticized Muszyński, 13.2 On omission of my additions of Grabowski's 2020 newspaper comments to talk pages of articles, and section 27 on ommission of content I've created that contradicts said "narrative" or "distortion". |
Summarised at #Summary of evidence involving Chapmansh
|
---|
Addendum: Champansh was active in this topic area in the past, for example making comments in discussions [53], [54], [55] and editing articles [56]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC) |
I've also significantly limited my editing in this topic area
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Piotrus
|
---|
Inspired by VM's analysis, I decided to look at my actvity on WP by topic area using this tool (spreadsheet available to Arbitrators upon request). I've analyzed three periods (from February each year): 2013-2017 (pre-Icewhiz era), 2017-2021 (Icewhiz and his socks era), 2021-2023 (post-Icewhiz, pre-case era), counting all articles I've made 6+ edits on, and grouping them into 1) World War II history of Poland, 2) the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed, 3) both and 4) others. Group 3 (both) contains articles that are in groups 1) and 2). In 2013-2017 I've made 6+ edits (5580 total) to 374 articles. Out of those, 25 articles concerned Polish WW2 topics (390 edits), 8 concerned Polish-Jewish history (92 edits), and 6 (63 edits) concerned both. Percentage wise, that's about 7%, 2% and 1.5%. Approximately 7% of my edits concerned one of those topic areas, while 93% of my edits concerned other topics. In 2017-2021 I've made 6+ edits (5580 total) to 434 articles. Out of those, 25 articles concerned Polish WW2 topics (390 edits), 8 concerned Polish-Jewish history (92 edits), and 6 (63 edits) concerned both. Percentage wise, that's about 32%, 28% and 18%. pproximately 40% of my edits concerned one of those topic areas, while 60% of my edits concerned other topics. In 2021-2023 I've made 6+ edits (4284 total) to 253 articles. Out of those, 24 articles concerned Polish WW2 topics (544 edits), 18 concerned Polish-Jewish history (516 edits), and 15 (425 edits) concerned both. Percentage wise, that's about 11%, 10% and 8%. Approximately 13% of my edits concerned one of those topic areas, while 87% of my edits concerned other topics. And that 13% is significantly related to my already wrapped up project of getting a set of articles to Good Article/A-class level (Witold Pilecki, The Volunteer (book)) or close (The Auschwitz Volunteer, Fighting Auschwitz). What does it mean? I call it the "Icewhiz effect". He was pushing his POV on many articles, sometimes fixing them (yes, we cannot deny that), sometimes damaging them (ditto - in fact, undoing this one massive attempt at disruption is what accounts for much of my editing in this topic area in 2021-2022). Icewhiz's extremly high activity combined with his very strong POV drew a number of editors into this topic area, resulting in some good content improvement, but due to his "white/black" true believer attitude, this made the area very contentious (a WP:BATTLEGROUND, see also my essay on the radicalization of users). Instead of collaborative editing, there was a lot of partisan back-and-forth. And once Icewhiz and his army of socks got mostly chased away, things are going back to normal (meaning, in other words, nobody is editing this topic area much, hence the enduring errors that Ealdgyth noted and nobody is fixing). Most editors who tried to fix them burned out and either left the project or moved on (or back) to other, less stresfull topic areas (for me that's stuff like science fiction, sociology and history of Polish literature, for example). For the project, it remains an interesting question whether Icewhiz-like individuals and editing style generates value (he drew people in, resulting in short-term content improvement due to intensive and controversial editing, but also burned people out, some - from the topic area, some - from Wikipedia entirely). But I digress. The point of my evidence here is that, like for everyone else, the "Icewhiz effect" has significantly decreased my motivation to edit this topic area (in particular, WWII Polish-Jewish topics; I am still unclear why regular, milhist-focused "World War II history of Poland" is within scope here - I don't think a single piece of evidence has been presented related to any content issues in that broader topic area). For better or worse, I don't expect things to change in the foreseeable future, since, bottom line, it is a very thankless job to try to improve those topics, as recent events have demonstrated. As far as I am concerned, others can tackle this (sorry, Ealdgyth). I have other stuff to do, where my activity is not going to result in serious accusations and off-wiki harassment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC) What I do around hereAddendum to the statistics on my contribution (quality-levels). Within this topic area, my contributions included (since 2017): 3 A-class articles (as assessed by WP:MILHIST: Battle of Westerplatte, Battle of Hel, Witold Pilecki), 8 Good Articles (the three A-class ones plus Bombing of Wieluń, Stanisław Kot, Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz, The Volunteer (book). Róża Maria Goździewska) and a few dozen DYKs (list available on my userpage). Outside this TA, in that time period, I wrote other 16 GAs and ~150 DYKs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Since 2021 I've created 183 new articles, out of which ~23 articles are in the topic area of this case: Modernity and the Holocaust (March 2023), Poland's Holocaust (February 2022), The Eagle Unbowed (January 2023), Stanisław Burhardt-Bukacki (December 2022), Detached Unit of the Polish Army (December 2022), Trail of Hope (November 2022), Story of a Secret State (September 2022), Japan and the Holocaust (September 2021), FDR and the Jews (June 2021), Rescuers: Portraits of Moral Courage in the Holocaust (June 2021), List of Chief Rabbis of Poland (May 2021), Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz (May 2021), Wacław W. Soroka (April 2021), Róża Maria Goździewska (April 2021), Jerzy Pertek (March 2021), Krzysztof Komorowski (March 2021), Fighting Auschwitz (March 2021), Józef Kwaciszewski (March 2021), The Auschwitz Volunteer (March 2021), Marco Patricelli (March 2021), Wiesław Wysocki (March 2021), The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 (January 2021), Święciany massacre (January 2021). I believe none of these have been "controversial" (tagged with {{npov}} or similar, or subject to edit warring). Several have been DYKed or even GAed since. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC) What I don't do around hereI don't get into trouble. Since my "tourbulent wiki-youth" aka the WP:EEML case of 2009 (of which this 2011 incident was an aftermath of) I don't believe I have broken any rules of our project, been subject to any sanction nor received any logged warning ([57]) or such outside the singular indicent in February 2021, which resulted in a month topic ban. A single instance of bad judgement in ~13 years, I hope, speaks for itself. PS. Since 2009 I don't believe I have filled an AE report trying to get anyone sanctioned; and I have have not been "filled against" outside some trivial complaint in 2011 (no action taken) and a harassment-report by Ice's sock in 2019 (no action, effectively speedy closed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
Champansh agreed with me on wiki and thanked me before the publication of her essay
Summarised at /Summary#Use of Jan T. Gross as a source
|
---|
This is an addendum to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Evidence#Another_RSN_discussion by Tryptofish related to #Appeal_of_Jan_T._Gross_edit_summary on talk. I'd like to add those diffs to evidence so that they can be inclued in the related summary: [58]: |
We are not our past - addendum
In some recent discussion, someone pointed out the quote, attributed to Kaynes, that "When the facts change, I change my mind". That's a very commendable attitude I fully approve of. To add to the "Examples of Piotrus reconsidering past actions/beliefs" in the current summary: my recent RSN vote on Glaukopis, my lack of objection to the removal of criticism by Polonsky (in my Response, 6.3-6.4) - plus my usage of him as a source diffed there.
I'd also like to submit to evidence that already back in 2020 I acknowledged that Grabowski makes some valid claims about inadequacies in our coverage of the topic area, and I asked him for permission to quote his extensive critique from a Polish newspaper on pages of several related articles, and, having received that permission, I started discussions, extensively quoting from his article, on several of our talk pages (13.1 and 13.2). Similar to this but more recent, I'd like note that I removed of a source criticized in G&K's essay here. And lastly, I'll submit recent Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#Białka_massacre as an example of a polite, constructive discussion in this topic between me, Gitz and Marcelus, where we discussed another claim from the G&K's essay and found soruces to corraborate their claim - and that I have corrected that error in the related article here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
For another recent development I'd point to Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Dęblin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II#Restarting_old_disputes, and the consensus that seems to have been worked out there recently between me and Gitz (with some prior comments by VM and a non-party mediator); that incident is related to the evidence presented by Gitz that has been just summarized. For the record (re: conduct), I find Gitz's involvement in that discussion with regards to interaction with me to be polite and constructive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Conduct of parties - addendum
Since I already discussed my edits, this section will be about others. This continued what I wrote under #Conduct of parties that was already summarized and hatted above.
Over the long period, I believe the most valuable contributions of the last several years come from Buidhe. They have created and/or significantly expanded several Good and even Featured articles in this topic area; some perhaps out of the narrowly considered scope of this case (FAs like The Holocaust in Greece, The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia, The Holocaust in Slovakia and several others), but some others directly related (Warsaw Ghetto boy, GA in 2018; Gates of Tears, DYK in 2018; History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II - GA and DYK in 2020).
In fact, while I would need to do more number crunching here, I expect that if measured in terms of DYKs, GAs and FAs, the topic area of this case (broadly constructed WWII Polish history + history of Jews in Poland) has an above-average number of high-end articles when compared to most other areas (ex. 15th-century Polish history or history of Ukrainians in Poland).
Since Marcelus is now a party here, I found his efforts to discuss various errors and organize discussion at Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#My_comments_on_the_objections_made_by_Grabowski_and_Klein_to_this_article very commendable.
I'd also like to note that a bit over a week ago I suggested to all editors active in the recent discussions that we should try to collaboratively, in the spirit of Wikipedia, work on a difficult and important topic of Antisemitism in Poland (see Talk:Antisemitism in Poland). Two editors, both parties now, have taken me up on this: Gitz6666 and Marcelus (page stats) Their constructive editing there should be recognized as WP:HERE. (To be clear, I am not blaming anyone for not joining in - people are busy or just not interested, that's expected - but those who did make an effort should be commended for it).
PS. When this is being summarized, you might as well summarize VM's #Ealdgyth's 2022 attempt to improve Holocaust in Poland article which is about the same - I was about to add something about how Ealdgyth is doing great job at User:Ealdgyth/Holocaust article audits. Commendable effort, again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Elinruby
Gitz6666
Read or at least skim the entire exchanges for the full flavor. The illustrative exchange is among the least graphic, and also notable for GizzyCatBella as the voice of reason. Each thread is essentially this, over and over again.
From: Talk:Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, section titled Category:Ukrainian war crimes
02:53, 23 December 2022 ...we should summarize. "Mass rape as a weapon of war" is a fair summary... of what the sources are saying. Adoring nanny
01:55, 24 December 2022 ...Gitz is... pushing his position that Russian forces did not commit mass rapes in Ukraine. My very best wishes
02:08, 24 December 2022 Gitz needs to stop edit warring against multiple editors. - GizzyCatBella🍁
- Much more of the same
Case Study bis: 2023
Evidence for asking underlined questions, page number problems also (offers alternate sources which also don't have page numbers):
Not one of these has a page number. "Unlike the situation in other German-occupied European countries, where the Germans installed collaborationist authorities, in occupied Poland there was no puppet government.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" Elinruby (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Was there a collaborationist Polish goverment installed by the German authorities during the Occupation of Poland? Did you check all 6 sources you removed? Did you check talk page archives Elinruby? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) yes I did check all six sources. This is the second time today that you've gotten upset that I am verifying sources. Do I really need to link to WP:V? It doesn't require that a source be online, I grant you, but six (!) sources in a row that can't be verified is special. Here is what I was trying to add just now:
- *Steinhaus: url does go to page 291, my mistake. However page 291 is a list of people arrested and does not support the text.
- * Strahan: archived publisher cover page, no page number provided.
- *Piotrowski: ditto Elinruby (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
PS: please lose the tone Elinruby (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Elinruby - I’m sorry that my tone (?) upsets you, I did not mean to do that. How about I'll share with you yet another source (with a quote) that says there was no collaborationist Polish puppet government during the war, unlike in most European countries, and you'll restore what you removed? Deal?
- Source: Rethinking Poles and Jews
- Quote:
During the war, while in most European countries the Germans found collaborators that set up puppet governments, Poland had no such collaborationist governments. The Germans arrested masses of Polish intellectuals, whom they perceived as a threat. As a result, thousands of Poles lost their lives during that occupation.- GizzyCatBella🍁 07:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Elinruby and feel free to choose more from this basket - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Case study: Poland section, Collaboration with the Axis powers
(A timeline in reverse chronological order)
- 12:36, 14 March 2018
Blocked François Robere. There was little indication that the edit warring would stop and editor declined to accept 1RR restriction on the article. As this is the first time the user has been blocked for edit warring, I decided that 72 hours would be appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ)
- 13 March 2018 Deep Fried Okra: full page protection
- 22:15, 12 March 2018 Dubious tag. François Robere: See talk<=edit summary
- 20 56, 12 March 2018 --GizzyCatBella Removed waste to slim down the section <= edit summary
- [20:20, 12 March 2018] User:François Robere reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: blocked)
- 20:18 March 12 2018 Sentence_by_sentence subsection -
If you review the talk page starting on February 16th, you'll see all of this has been discussed already, and multiple times, yet after so much editing work we're nearly where we started. Anyone? --François Robere
- What is going on with the Poland section? <= title of archive section (converted to link by Primefac)
GizzyCatBella makes some startling statements:
- 23:15, 10 March 2018
Go read this, [60] from your own people, I don't even have to reach to the evaluations of Polish scholars to prove how questionable is this topic. Drop that prejudiced view François Robere this is unconstructive. - GizzyCatBella
- 06:30, 10 March 2018
Collaborators in Poland at the most could hold: Volksdeutsche, The Blue Police, Jewish Ghetto Police, Judenrats to some extents, Żagiew and Group 13. That's all thank you very much. -GizzyCatBella
- 23:50, 9 March 2018
I'll tell you how I see all of this, and I’ll be straightforward. The truth of the matter is that Poland has never produced any organized collaborating element, unlike the other occupied nations. None. Poland was unique; the collaboration breathed solely on an individual level. This reality is inconvenient for some groups, so personal collaboration is being overblown to the absurd levels by people like Grabowski; his ridiculous claims that"the whole society collaborated" is complete nonsense. -GizzyCatBella
- 19:18, 2 March 2018
The fact that the Germans attempted to find collaborators in Poland is unknown to the general public hence needs to be incorporated here. -GizzyCatBella
Positive contribution: Marcelus and Collaboration with the Axis powers
Summarised at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area
|
---|
|
Marcelus and Gitz6666
Summarised at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area
|
---|
At the moment I can't find the original discussion where Marcellus offered to do this, but Marcelus deserves vast credit for his rewrite of the Jewish collaboration section,[64] whose referencing I had been unsuccessful in getting someone to address. (see RSN thread already put in evidence by Horse Eye's Back) I also felt the section was overly focused on blaming individuals and on the Warsaw ghetto. Note intelligent and helpful suggestions from Gitz6666, one of which Marcelus incorporated into the section. The second suggestion, he said, would be for an article of which the section is a summary, which is exactly what Marcelus and I had previously discussed, that the section would be a summary of an article not yet written. The section is vastly more neutral now. Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
Piotrus
Summarised at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area
|
---|
Piotrus has made a huge effort to address the referencing problems I discovered at Collaboration with the Axis powers, which, please note, seem to have largely not have been of his making. He has considerably improved several aspects of the referencing in the Poland section, including several sources that failed verification. I am out of my area of expertise there, so others may want to review what was done in the section, but the failed verifications are gone. For an example of a collegial discussion with him, please see here, where we discuss the difficulties of providing a page number for a reference to Eichmann in Jerusalem. It is still unresolved, btw, so if anyone has insight into the technical issue, or can find the supporting text in another edition, please speak up. Otherwise I guess the text will need to be removed. I also saw in a reference in one of the historiography sections that she is now believed to have been mistaken about the Judenräte, so if anyone can confirm that, perhaps we can explain the controversy rather than remove such a notable book outright. I can provide other diffs of Piotrus behaving like the honest academic I believe him to be, but am presenting this in the spirit of adding new chunks of evidence sooner rather than longer essays later. Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
Support adding Gitz6666 as party
Summary at /Summary#Gitz6666
|
---|
I have been working since February on Collaboration with the Axis powers and have with the help of quite a few other editors managed to improve the referencing and English. Possibly the balance as well. I am one of several editors who took an interest in the topic area, but I am somewhat bemused (although fairly serene) about being the only one to become a party, considering the peaceful nature of our work at the collaboration article. I am not particularly fussed about this, but since some other editors have behaved aggressively and belligerently and one of these is also a party, with whom Gitz was in fact working on at least some of the articles where arguments and accusations occurred, then why would they not also be asked to answer for that? I have a number of diffs and analyses to submit but since the deadline to request to add a new party has as far as I know not been extended, I would like the committee to take note that if Gitz is added I may have some things to say, but VM has really covered most of what needed to be said on the subject in the Editor Interaction tool, so if the scope blows up it won't be from my 5-6 addition diffs about Gitz. |
Apparently needs to be said
Most of this was evidence outside the topic area. What was in the topic area summarized at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area
|
---|
I laughed at a recent allegation that I don't work collaboratively, because:
Those and the other barnstars, as well as the editor of the week award, can be found here, with a couple more on the talk page. CommonsElinruby (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC) |
Grabowski assertion correct?
Summarized at /Summary#Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers
|
---|
Grabowski, quotes and taked issue with the Collaboration article: I opened an RSN post about the reference supporting this sentence [66].
|
Evidence presented by Horse Eye's Back
General topic area
Summarized at /Summary#Reliable Sources Noticeboard
|
---|
This is not my core topic area, my current involvement began at the reliable sources noticeboard when the newly published Grabowski & Klein piece was brought to RSN on February 10. I was the first at RSN to read and evaluate the source (which took me about an hour, I take RSN very seriously). At the time I said that the source seemed reliable and matched my own understanding of the topic area. I brought up Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#Mass removal of criticisms from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance[67] which had been stuck in my mind for years as egregious... I was heavily involved in a very important RfC above it on RSN Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA) and remember explicitly refraining from commenting because I was almost certain that it would lead to retaliation against me in the discussion I was working on. What this says to me is that this was always an open secret, we always knew that a certain group of editors would disrupt the project to get their way in their own little kingdom. We didn't need Grabowski & Klein to tell us that, anyone who was paying attention knew it. Since that RSN post I have involved myself rather heavily in this topic area, my observations and diffs post February 10 will be presented in future sections. |
Summarized at Use of Kot (1937) at Paradisus Judaeorum
|
---|
Here is the other time I didn't get involved in this topic area and regret it. Going back to 2020 on Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum we find Piotrus and Nihil novi engaged in a battle against all comers, they effectively stonewall @Chumchum7:, @Warshy:, and SarahSV (deceased). Those involved said it best[68][69]. I watched that whole series of discussions but didn't participate, in hindsight I feel great shame at that. I feel like my silence enabled abuse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
|
We are not our past
Summarized at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Piotrus
|
---|
I believe that the point of this proceedings is generally that evidence of misconduct or issues is provided but I would ask leave to also provide evidence in favor of Piotrus, among all the editors under discussion they seem to have made the most growth in terms of how they interact with other editors. The Piotrus I see when I look at years old diffs is not the Piotrus I see today, I like the current one much better. There are a few places where I've noted this but the one I have a diff for is[71]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Additional diff:[72] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Recentish noticeboard discussions
RSN
FTN
Summarised at /Summary#Fringe_Theory_Noticeboard
|
---|
COIN
BLPN
Not summarised for now; most of these decisions did not reach a clear resolution or were poorly-attended |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
NPOVN
Misc.
Retribution/retaliation
Summary at /Summary#Chapmansh and Volunteer Marek
|
---|
In my opinion Volunteer Marek has engaged in WP:HARASSMENT against Chapmansh. This harassment is most visible in the form of repeated pings which occurred in the time period following the publication of the article. These pings began on the 10th[73] and by the 12th they clearly no longer served a legitimate purpose (Chapmansh had not gotten involved in the discussions) so I asked VM to desist [[74]] but they didn't, I asked them a second time to stop gratuitously pinking Chapmansh[75] they replied "I'm sorry but are you Chapmansh? If Chapmansh wishes to ask me not to ping them then they can do that (I've only did it a few times where it was pertinent). And can I inquire why you find it necessary to reply and comment on almost every single comment I make? This is getting extremely tiresome and is looking like WP:harassment at this point." which is just beyond what is reasonable, to turn around and baselessly accuse someone who has very politely asking you to stop harassing another editor of harassing *you* is completely unacceptable. IMO there is no compelling reason to ping someone who is not a participant in a conversation multiple times as VM did at the Village Pump, the first makes them aware of the discussion but what do the rest do besides harassment? This issue was also raised by others who noted that VM appeared to be seeking retribution against Chapmansh [76][77]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Not summarised yet, could be folded in to the second round of evidence depending on what questions we have |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
GizzyCatBella behaviour during discussions
Talk:Mariusz Bechta#Sources would appear to fall into that same basket. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Lembit Staan
Summary at /Summary#Lembit Staan
|
---|
Disclosure: my previous user name was user:Staszek Lem. I renamed myself after a polite hint from the son of Stanislaw Lem. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I was thoroughly surprized to find me listed among the main Polish Holocaust revisionists on wikipedia :-(. In fact I have close to none contribution on the discussed subject. The only notable altercation I can remember is about the bio of Jan Żaryn. From this disproportionality I may guess who were the main "inside jobs" for the article of GK in question. |
Baseless accusation of me being a Holocaust revisionist
Summary at /Summary#Jan Żaryn
|
---|
The article of GK says "After still more back and forth in July, including a five-part Request for Comment by François Robere,Footnote233 Lembit Staan and GizzyCatBella overhauled the entire article, simply removing the overwhelming majority of the journalists’ and scholars’ observations on Żaryn’s extremism" - the "simply removing" statement is false. |
The fact is that the mentioned "still more back and forth in July" was a thorough criticism of the additions suggested by François Robere. On my part I analyzed the cited sources in detail and my major objections per WP:BLP were: (a) mistranslations, (b) too liberal interpretations of sources by wikipedians to the disfavor of the subject of the article, i.e., Jan Żaryn, and (c) what is more fascinating, the provably poor scholarhip of the sources cited which criticized Żaryn, making these sources unreliable. My arguments may be found in Talk:Jan_Żaryn#RfC:_Jan_Żaryn. If requested I can provide specific examples and more explanations. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
False / misleading statements about Żaryn's bio
Below is just nipicking, but I really have nothing more to say because I really did nothing wrong. The article of GK says I do agree with GK that the views (and the low quality of scholarship, and his engagement with that the "party line") of Żaryn are described poorly. But the phrasing "without being told of their baselessness" is a preconception indicative of poor scholarship of GK. For example, the bio says "Żaryn argues that the tensions between Jews and other nations in interwar Poland were mostly due to economic reasons" (well, that's not what exactly he wrote, but this is beside the point) - here is a book by Michael C. Steinlauf which basically says the same: the prominent position of the Jews in business in the interwar Poland was the main antisemitic argument that the Jews are "taking over" Poland. -- so much about "baselessness"; rather sloppy phrasing and poor scholarship, abundant in Zaryn writings. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by Gitz
Selective quotation from Gross at Jedwabne pogrom, tendentious editing and uncivil behaviour
Summarized at /Summary#Jedwabne pogrom. Analysis began before summary and can be found here.
|
---|
I know that what follows is a trifle compared to G&K's allegations and diffs, but at least it's recent and therefore maybe of interest. I consider this comment by Volunteer Marek and this edit to be tendentious and uncivil. The sequence leading to them:
|
Postwar Property Restitution
Summary at /Summary#History of the Jews in Poland
|
---|
Prolonged edit war at History of the Jews in Poland between Feb-June 2019. Evidence of misrepresentation of sources, tendentious editing (WP:BATTLEGROUND) and disruptive editing (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).
Analysis. Something wasn't working properly in the topic area. The choice between Tatzref's text (text 1) and Icewhiz's text (text 2) was a no-brainer: cf. text 1 (22 February, 16 May, 3 June) and text 2 (12 March, 16 May, 3 June): it is clear that text 2 is better. This doesn't mean that editors supporting text 1 were not in good faith: I don't believe that at all. Besides, Wikipedia's method of collaborative writing does not guarantee that the outcomes will always be optimal. Finally, in the case of Jewish property the best draft ultimately prevailed. But it took two AE requests, one RSN thread, one RFC, 4 months of toxic discussions, 1 indeff'd editor (Yaniv [118]; see Icewhiz's comment on his user page: [119]). That t/p discussion shows a blocked and dysfunctional editing process, a process that was bound to generate "distortions" on many accounts; in an area such as Holocaust remembrance, it was also bound to generate arch-Pov-pushers like Icewhiz. |
Naliboki massacre, 2018-2019
Not summarised for now; primarily "old" content in the Icewhiz era, but could be tied to current events if necessary. Recent AE conduct already summarised at /Summary#Naliboki_massacre |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
With regard to Jewish partisans being responsible for the Naliboki massacre, background knowledge: this is not supported by historical evidence, since basically no RS says that the massacre was made by Jewish partisans in general nor by the Bielski partisans in particular. Some eyewitnesses reported that the killings were carried out by Bielski partisans/by Jews, but subsequent historical research found no documentary evidence. In the 2000s Polish nationalists began blaming Jews, possibly as a balancing counterweight to the culpability of Poles in the Jedwabne pogrom. Since February-March 2018 various edits from IP and Yaniv adding/removing claims about the Jewish ethnicity of the perpetrators; March 2018, Icewhiz removes
VM reverts June 2018 Icewhiz removes July 2018 Yaniv removes [127], IP address restores February 2019 IP’s well-argued edit summary Last step in the saga: after G&K's article was published, new users, including me, landed on the page to clean it up. TrangaBellam and I got a little upset with Marcelus, who was still very interested in reconstructing the movements of the Jewish partisans in the forest, to the point that he made an edit war on this (GizzyCatBella concurring on the talk page). It ended up at AE but the article is now in decent conditions, and the reading of the section Unsubstantiated claims of Jewish perpetrators is quite instructive. My analysis. I really appreciate VM's essay Edit warring is good for you, which reminds me Machiavelli's view on liberty and conflict, which is at the heart of republicanism. However, in the case of the Naliboki massacre edit war didn't deliver the good - possibly because Wikipedia's methods is more dialogical than confrontational? I don't know. Note that the G&K paper involves Piotrus in the Naliboki saga, |
History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II, 2021-ongoing
|
Glaukopis (2021 and 2023)
Not summarised for now, see the relevant talk page section. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Our dedicated article describes Glaukopis as "nationalist Polish history journal catering to the far right"; G&K say that its long-time editor-in-chief, Wojciech Muszyński "openly praises the ONR, one of the most militant, rabidly antisemitic organizations of prewar Poland". In a March 2023 discussion at RSN, all editors (Piotrus included) commented that Glaukopis is unreliable; the only exception was My very best wishes, who nonetheless assesed the source as WP:BIASED arguing that Compare with a February 2021 discussion on the same source:
Analysis moved to the talk page |
Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, 2021
G&K article says that The Polish government’s resolve to control the past culminated with the passage in 2018 of the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance
(p. 5). Widely shared assessment, see e.g. European Parliament resolution of 17 September 2020 P9_TA(2020)0225: the 2018 law jeopardises freedom of speech and independent research by rendering it a civil offense that is actionable before civil courts to cause harm to the reputation of Poland and its people, such as by making any accusation of complicity of Poland or Poles in the Holocaust
; OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media [177]; Amnesty International [178]; American Historical Association [179].
The writing of Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance took place with some disagreement between Icewhiz, François Robere (FR) and Volunteer Marek (VM) on 14 March 2019 (3R in 12h by VM) and between FR, Levivic and MyMoloboaccount on 17 Nov 2019. In Oct-Nov 2020 the article was more stable; Buidhe edited it substantially on 19-21 Oct and 26-27 Oct.
- 1 Jan 2021: Buidhe adds comparison with similar laws including Turkey [180] and criticism by US constitutional lawyer Tsesis [181]; with five consectuve edits, VM revers and also removes other content [182], e.g. reference to Szczuczyn pogrom (carried out by Poles) that was included by Boud in 2018 [183] and reference to Kanika Gauba's "duty to forget" as the point of the 2018 Amendment, which was included by Icewhiz and MyMoloboaccount in 2019-2020 [184][185]. Buidhe restores
undiscussed major changes, removing aspects that are significantly emphasized in most scholarly sources that discuss the law
[186]; VM revertsNooo, the ADDITION of this stuff constitutes "undiscussed major changes" since... you didn't bother discussing any of them. I've actually provided the rationale on talk for my restoration of version before YOUR "undiscussed major changes"
[187]; Buidhe restoresrestore content from scholarly sources removed without explanation
[188] - See t/p discussion stuff in lede. Buidhe:
You removed a lot of longstanding information from the lead, most of which has been present for months without any dispute. Also, some of it was not added by myself, but various other editors
; VM:No, I removed a chunk of UNDUE text which you JUST ADDED to the lede, less than THAN AN HOUR AGO! What are you talking about?
Buidhe:The material that you deleted was not just my recent edit
; VM:Here is what you added at 23:03 [17] Here is what I removed at 23:22 [18] The only difference between what was added and what was removed is the sentence "As most Ukrainians (...)" which is also undue for the lede. The diffs are right there Buidhe
; Buidhe:This statement is false
. WP:CIV? - 2 Jan: since Buidhe doesn't agree with VM's (−5,464) edit, VM doubles down with a massive (-23.707) WP:POINTy removal of sources and text:
Restore "stable version" per suggestion on talk so that the recent major changes can actually be discussed. Will work to reincorporate subsequent non-controversial edits
[189]. "Stable version" is the 15 Oct 2020 version, arguably the 5 Nov 2020 was already stable (in place 2 months without any intervening edits). 30+ consecutive edits follow [190]. Comparison between Buidhe's and VM's versions [191]. WP:DIS, WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:POINT? - See t/p discussion Mass removal of well-sourced content. Buidhe:
I'm happy to discuss but it isn't productive to mass-remove almost half the article content as you did in this [27] edit, especially since most of it is well sourced to strong sources such as academic articles and so forth
; El_CVolunteer Marek, you have removed tens of thousands of bytes, so now the expectation is that you explain in detail the reasoning behind that removal, not to mention touching on the origin of that which has been removed
Given the extent of the changes a productive discussion is impossible. VM'sIf you are objecting to some other edit of mine then please be specific
sounds mockery. No one could ever have the time to review all these changes. - On the same day, Buidhe adds a "Background" section to the article [192], which IMO is clearly informative, well-sourced and neutral; GCB removes
@Buidhe, I have to step in here. I'm sorry, but here you seem to be connecting material from multiple sources to suggest a conclusion. This is WP:SYNTH. I will revert this edit of yours for now, but let talk about it at talk if you disagree. Okay?
[193]. See t/p discussion Removal of historical background material. Unconstructive comments by GCB assuming Buidhe doesn't know the meaning of SYNTH (Please examine WP:SYNTH, and then please tell me what you think about the above combined material (...) Buidhe, it took you 2 minutes to reply....have you studied WP:SYNTH in 2 minutes or you were already familiar with WP:SYNTH?
) and equally unconstructive (off-topic and misleading) comment by VM (The fact that the text “does not state or imply anything about the amendment” is precisely why it’s WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK
). WP:CIV? - 2 Jan: Buidhe opens an RfC: Legal analysis section. VM objects
The problem is that this throws together a bunch of additions that are probably non-controversial with a bunch which are, basically trying to force an up/down vote on the entirety.
Buidhe:Basically all of it was deleted from the article by you, except one sentence from Tsesis.
Seven "yes", three "no", one "Mhmhm" (by Piotrus). Notable points:
- !votes "yes" include Buidhe, François Robere, Szmenderowiecki + four non-party/uninvolved editors;
- Piotrus is
actually favoring inclusion of this
but has WP:POV concerns; he asks if there are RSs supporting the law; since no source is available, he suggestsMaybe someone should contact the IPN and ask them to supply some sources?
; - !votes "no" are VM, GCB and My very best wishes (MVBW), who provides various reasons to support his !vote, e.g. content is redundant, the law is ineffective,
and there are some really ridiculous laws in Russia
.
Evidence presented by Volunteer Marek
"Contentiousness" of the topic area
Summarized at /Summary#Disruption in the topic area over time. Added to Analysis
|
---|
This is intended for the "other in scope" portion of the evidence. This area is one of the "contentious topics". But the fact is that for the past year it actually has NOT been contentious. The pattern is that the topic area has been quieting down since the imposition of the 500/30 restriction by the Arbitration Committee in May 2020 and especially since that was changed to extended confirmed protection in September 2021. To be sure, there was a lag, mostly due to the fact that it took some time for Icewhiz to burn through some of his "established" socks: [194] [195] [196] [197] (and at least a dozen more). In fact, most of the disputes between mid-2020 and early 2022 involved at least one Icewhiz sock, who were showing up to pour gasoline on a diminishing fire. Of course the relative quiet of 2021 was "punctured" by the December 2021 WCC case request. This too had heavy involvement from Icewhiz as he was emailing several individuals, including the filer. This was closed in February of 2022 and really ever since then there hasn't been much going on (this is both why all the stuff in the G&K paper is so old and also why most of the evidence being presented here is stuff that happened AFTER this paper was published and case opened). One way to see this is to look at the number of Poland-related (especially Holocaust in Poland) WP:AE reports by year. This is probably as good of a metric of "contentiousness" as you're going to get. Here is the number of AE reports by topic area in 2020 and 2021. In 2020 there were seven AE reports in this topic area, sixth highest out of all the topic areas subject of such reports. In 2021 there were only three, third lowest, ahead of only "Motorsports" and "pseudoscience". I am not including a graph for 2022 for the simple reason that there were exactly zero AE reports in this topic area last year. It also helps to look at the trends over time. Here is a graph of Poland related (not just Holocaust) AE cases by year, going back to 2011. There was good bit of controversy in 2011 but this was mostly unrelated to the Holocaust (it was mostly related to the also-indef-banned User:Russavia). Between 2012 and 2017 things quieted down. It was the arrival of Icewhiz which changed things, as can be clearly seen from the graph. Icewhiz filed a record number of AE reports in very short time [198] and indeed this was one of the Findings of Fact during the 2019 case [199] Beginning in 2022 and right up to the publication of the G&K paper, this was simply NOT a contentious area. The interventions by the Committee, as well as the work of several dedicated admins (yes, User:El_C, that does include you too) in blocking Icewhiz socks (even if sometimes with a bit too much of a delay) had done what it was suppose to. It worked. Of course this doesn't speak to the content and it may very well be the case that several articles need some serious fixin'. But as far as conduct goes - which is what this case was labeled as being about [200] - there just hasn't been much going on in recent past. (detailed data behind the graphs above available upon request) Volunteer Marek 06:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Editors driven away by harassment or attempted to be driven off
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:MyMoloboaccount stated that he left Wikipedia due to the harassment they were subject to because of editing this topic area. This is in addition to myself receiving death threats and rape threats against my children [202] and Piotrus being blackmailed in order to explicitly drive them away from this topic area [203]. The harassment of myself has been confirmed by ArbCom and the harassment of Piotrus has been confirmed by both the ArbCom and Trust & Safety. MyMoloboaccount's last comment involve a claim that as a result of the harassment they have suffered a stroke and their health deteriorated [204], the desperate plea for their family to be left alone [205], repeated several times "STOP HARASSING ME. YOU RUINED MY LIFE.LEAVE ME AND MY FAMILY ALONE. DELETE MY ACCOUNT. LEAVE ME ALONE." [206] [207] [208] [209], more desperate requests to have their Wikipedia page deleted [210] with an edit summary " I PROMISE NEVER TO WRITE ANYTHING ON WIKIPEDIA AGAIN. I won't be writing anything again. I promise. Please leave me alone." and again and again Given the kind of harassment I have experience myself, I find MyMoloboaccount's desperate claims credible. To put it simply, Icewhiz (and whatever associates he has) succeeded with them in what they have so far failed with me. Unlike some of the other users who claim they have been "driven away" from this topic area, yet still continue to edit it to this day (including participating in battleground behavior like filing WP:AE reports and edit warring), or those who actually never edited it in the first place, MyMoloboaccount's claim is credible because AFAICT they actually DID leave Wikipedia for good. User:Poeticbent has also been driven off by years of some extremely vile harassment, some of it going back to 2011 but that's old news, they're not here and I'm not sure if it's right to revisit it in their absence. Focusing on spurious and self serving claims of having been driven away (by editors who actually continue to edit) while ignoring the tremendous amount of abuse and grief that some other users have been subject to is, to say the least, fundamentally warped. Volunteer Marek 02:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Gitz6666 has made himself a party to this case and should be added as such
Summarized at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Gitz6666
|
---|
Unfortunately Gitz6666 subsequent conduct has confirmed my initial fears, as much as I wanted to believe otherwise. They both have started disputes with me on articles in this topic (I walked away from these as soon as I could), made accusations against me and appear to be going through old disputes I was involved in and re-inserting and re-igniting these. Given this context it is hard to avoid the impression that Gitz6666 came over to this topic area to pursue a grudge and try to "get back" at me for their topic ban in another topic area. The LAST thing this topic area needs is users who not only bring their WP:BATTLEGROUND approach in from other topic area, but who choose to participate in this topic area simply with the intention of griefing others. While obviously we don't sanction users for their conduct on other Wikipedias, I do think it is relevant that Gitz6666's behavior was likewise found to be problematic on both the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias and was blocked indefinetly on both for pretty much this type of behavior. For this reason at very least Gitz6666 should be added as a party to this case for carrying over disputes from other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 03:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
|
@User:Barkeep49, re: clashes with User:Elinruby - that is really another section all to itself. Just some instances: [220] (note this is Gitz6666's section heading, it was renamed by uninvolved editor to "Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666"), [221] ("sealioning" is a reference to Gitz6666's behavior), rest of the exchange in same thread: [222][223] [224] [225] [226] and this one [227] (ELinruby notices Gitz6666's tendency to claim to have "demonstrated" or "proved" something when they really haven't - they do that in their evidence here as well). Another thread [228] [229] [230] and here a pretty good description of Gitz6666's editing behavior. And then [231] Also on user talk pages [232] [233] There's a bunch more but for sake of space and not over-diff'in I'll just link to some of the interaction tool pages: [234] [235] [236] [237]
- I do want to stress here that Elinruby's comments and views in these discussion are very much inline what many other (uninvolved) users said (can list if needed), hence the topic ban for Gitz6666 in the end. Volunteer Marek 17:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Gitz6666 has taken upon themselves to restart old disputes
Not summarised yet. See /Analysis for more. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Now, Gitz6666 has decided to pour through my very old edits, apparently going back all the way to 2009 (see bottom of this version) and go and revert either my old edits or re-open old disputes I was involved in. With complete lack of self awareness, in the same page where they're pulling diffs of my edits from... 2009 they claim, unironically as best as I can tell, that "I've never wikihounded VM". Right. That's why they're digging out edits from 2009 and attempting to restart old disputes like here (note the false edit summary: the consensus was reached on that article with these comments (pleaseread them in order) [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] on June 19 2021. In fact Z1720 did awesome work here and mediated a reasonable compromise (include one part of source but not another because it didn't specifically refer to the localities of Dęblin and Irena) and this is actually how collaborative dispute resolution is supposed to work. Whatever they're doing now, they deserve a barnstar. Yet Gitz6666 thought it ok to come back to this article after two years and restore the version that was the subject of controversy. Why? It appears simply to be more of the "I'm going to get you back for the topic ban I got from Ukraine-Russia topic area" vendetta edits. I plan on editing other examples to this list. Volunteer Marek 04:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Add: in this comment [245] Gitz6666 claims IF *I* all of sudden started going through Gitz6666's edits from 2017 or 2018 or whatever and reverting them, while this case was ongoing and while I was presenting case against them, I would most certainly expect to be sanctioned (blocks supposed to be preventive etc.) - but of course I'm not the one doing that. Volunteer Marek 05:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC) |
Ealdgyth's 2022 attempt to improve Holocaust in Poland article
Summarised at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area
|
---|
At the end of the fiasco of that 2021 case request by User:Jehochman, User:Ealdgyth drew up a list "problems and errors" in the article on Holocaust in Poland and invited the editors involved in this topic area to work to resolve them here. This was exactly the kind of initiative that I think was needed. Unfortunately, I was the ONLY person to step up and try to work on the problems highlighted by Ealdgyth (see my edits to the article in Jan ’22, this one, through this one, which was really the last time I made extensive edits to this topic area). There’s always a lot of screaming and yelling about how many problems there supposedly are in this topic area, but nobody seemed interested in actually fixing them. The only other editors involved were User:My very best wishes who asked some questions on the talk, and User:François Robere who showed up posting some stuff about Poeticbent or something [246] and, in my view, attempted to turn this effort into another bickerin' battleground (although they seemed to have changed their mind and undid their post) [247]. I should also say that even though I expected this kind of response from FR, I was also deeply disappointed that no other "Polish" editors tried to help out with these very real problems. But I can understand why nobody else stepped up. I spent about 2 weeks on the article and managed to address maybe half a dozen issues (out of 41). Fixing these things also required acquiring particular works and books, which I spent my own money on (another one I ordered through Interlibrary Loan but it took awhile to arrive). So lots of time and some money. For basically no reward. Maybe even negative reward, since the whole time I worked on it I was extremely conscious of the fact that any edit I made could potentially be used against me at some point by someone with an axe to grind, who would misrepresent or twist it. Indeed, the G&K paper and some of the evidence being presented here is exactly of that nature. When you edit this topic area you get extremely paranoid because you know some people are saving every single diffs for possible future use against you, that every thing you do will be interpreted not just in bad faith but the-worst-possible-faith, and that's not even getting into the Icewhiz harassment. My disappointment in lack of effort by anyone else (except of course Ealdgyth), especially the people who are always running around screaming about how faulty this topic area is, is a big part of what led me to pretty much abandon this topic area in 2022. Volunteer Marek 08:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
Proposed IBAN with FR as result of Callanecc's civility restriction
Summarised at /Summary#François Robere and Volunteer Marek
|
---|
This is an addition/elaboration on evidence presented by User:Callanecc [248] Since the imposition of this restriction the only person who has accused me of violating it is User:François Robere. Significantly, FR made the accusation [249] regarding edits to a different topic area, which did not involve them. This is pretty clear evidence that FR was Wiki-stalking my edits looking for something to get me in trouble with, even after I stopped editing in the Holocaust in Poland topic area. When I responded to FR's accusations on Callanecc's talk page [250] and explicitly stated I have no intention of interacting with FR [251], Francois Robere actually claimed that me responding to his accusations was evidence that I was "following him" [252] ... ... ... because I responded to his accusations against ME, on another user's talk page. This was so over top absurd that I asked for a two way IBAN with FR [253]. I even asked FR if he was ok with an IBAN, since they were claiming that I was following them (rather than vice versa - reminder: they were complaining about my comments at articles they didn't even edit!) [254] Callenecc then responded by analyzing FR's "diffs" [255]. They said one of the comments could be seen as a breach (I struck the comment per the wording of the restriction [256]). More importantly they also pointed out to FR that, well, obviously, I came to their talk page to respond and if I hadn't, Callanecc was going to ping me anyway. Callanecc also stated that they were considering an IBAN on FR even before they read my suggestion of the same. FR then quickly posted refusing the two way IBAN, falsely claiming that only evidence of him following me around was stale [257] (completely untrue - I mean, kind of hilariously, the very fact FR was posting diffs of my edits from articles they didn't edit or weren't involved in was itself evidence of their following me) The fact that *I* proposed a 2 way I ban while FR rejected it is pretty clear indication of who is following who around Wikipedia. I want nothing to do with FR. They want to be able to stalk my edits. FR already has an interaction ban with GizzyCatBella and has admitted in the past to watching User:Mymoloboaccount's contributions [258] (last sentence in diff) and following them around (they were almost indef blocked for this by User:RexxS [259]. This is relevant in light of my evidence on how Mymoloboaccount left Wikipedia [260]. Stalking and trying to "police" "Polish editors" is a long running pattern with Francois Robere, going back to 2018. Callanecc then said [261] that they'll wait to see if the ArbCom takes the (present) case. I am interpreting this to basically be saying that IF the ArbCom had not taken this case, Callanecc was going to proceed with the 2 way IBAN. Bottomline: an IBAN with Francois Robere is a good idea. They are clearly following me around (as they did with GCB and Mymoloboaccount previously - those instances they admitted but I guess they figured out by now that that's not a good look) and they are accusing me of following them around (I'm not). You can make the IBAN 2 way if you want to though, I have no desire to interact with them. User:Callanecc - if I misrepresented anything in this section please let me know. This is my understanding of the incident and if I got something wrong, it's not intentional. Volunteer Marek 23:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
I've pretty much stopped editing in this topic area
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Volunteer Marek
|
---|
The request for Arbitration filed by Jehochman in 2021 was closed in January of 2022 [262].Since February 1 2022 up until February 1 2023 I made a total of 4729 edits to Wikipedia. This includes minor edits, reversions of vandalism, etc., everything (4181 edits between Feb 1 2022 and Dec 30 2022 and another 548 in January 2023) [263] Out of these 4729 edits during the past year (dating from Feb 1) fifty one (51) were in the topic area of Holocaust in Poland. That's 1.08% of my edits during this time period Of these 4729 edits during that year forty eight (48) were related to World War 2 in Poland but NOT the Holocaust in Poland . That's 1.01% of my edits during this time period 97.9% of my edits during that year were to OTHER topics. Of the 51 edits in this topic area I made in that year, 38 were in regard to controversy on the Jan Karski article with a strange account which made some strange statements (about "spies on Wikipedia" and how a source was available from their "friend"). 5 of them were reversions of obvious socks (not Icewhiz, User:English Patriot Man/User:Janj9088 [264] [265]) or minor edits or reverting vandalism. Other than the Karski edits and these 5, I made only 8 edits, out of 4729 to this topic area (roughly one-fifth-of-one-percent, or .0017) during this time. I have pretty much abandoned this topic area. For two reasons. First, there was much less socking by Icewhiz during this period, the 500/30 restriction having done its job. Second, just plain burn out. Just getting sick of all the controversies and bad faith and knowing that every edit you make is saved by someone as a diff to be used and twisted against you. Ultimately, why bother? Yes, subsequent to the publication of the G&K paper (Feb 10?) several controversies in this topic area were restarted. And yes, I did comment and edit some articles in relation to some of them. Even there I really tried to restrict myself to cases where somebody was getting something really wrong or where I thought my comments would be particularly helpful. I also want to acknowledge (yes I'm being defensive, pre-emptive and paranoid) before somebody accuses me of bad faith that in January of 2022 I also made other edits to this topic area. This was basically the "tail end" or "wrap up" if you'd like of the 2021 WCC case request. Again, above numbers are for Feb 2022 to Feb 2023. List of all my edits is available through my editing history but I can send a spread sheet of all of them which breaks it down by topic area on request. Volunteer Marek 06:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
My responses on substack
Not summarised for now. This should probably be used as analysis of presented evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to enter into evidence some of my responses to G&K paper I made into substack, while noting explicitly that those posts were NOT written for Wikipedians but rather more for an outside audience. That means that a good portion of what I wrote there is old news around these parts or things which are obvious to Wikipedians (like what WP:BLP or WP:DENY are). Here is my main response to G&K. I may try - time permitting - to enter some of this info into evidence independently but if that does not happen I wish to especially emphasize the section "Collective Responsibility (paragraphs 10 - 30)" of this post, including the graphs and the sub-sections. Here is the second part of main response. Similarly, if I do not have time to enter this info independently, I wish to bring special attention to the table illustrating the extensive overlap between the texts in the paper and Icewhiz's old complaints; almost everything in the second part of the section was previously posted by Icewhiz in either WP:AE requests or as part of the 2019 case. Some of the wording in G&K paper is what we would call on Wikipedia a "close paraphrase" of what Icewhiz wrote previously. The sources used by G&K were often first used by Icewhiz on Wikipedia. The controversies that ensued post Icewhiz's 2019 ban involved his sock puppets. Third part addresses some specific accusations made by G&K against me [266]. Some of this has been referenced in various evidences in this case and I hope to provide elaboration in subsequent phases of this case. Volunteer Marek 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
Jan Zaryn article
Disclaimer: WP:BLP applies even to people one doesn't like or agree with. I am completely opposed to Zaryn's views but that doesn't mean that we should use Wikipedia as a vehicle for attacks on living subjects. See my comment here: [267]
Relationship to G&K paper
Not summarised for now; slightly out-of-scope as it is regarding the paper and the author's critiques of on-wiki activity |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The controversy on Jan Żaryn article is discussed in the G&K paper. The image below shows text in G&K (V2) and the text from Wikipedia talk page (V1), a proposed "draft" by Francois Robere [268]. The two text are identical in content except the order of sentences is changed. On Wikipedia we would call that "close paraphrasing". At minimum. It's true that both text include quotations but then why did the authors chose to include exactly same quotes from an interview as FR? I'll let people draw their own conclusions why these two texts are almost identical. FR's "draft" was added to the article for them by yet another sock puppet [269] on June 3rd [270], without consensus while discussion was still ongoing. The sock puppet account also started an RfC "on François Robere's second proposal" [271] which quickly saw a bunch of other new accounts. Background
It is completely false that "Polish newspapers described his statements as (...) antisemitic, and chauvinistic". This however was indeed what Mhorg, Francois Robere and a slew of sock puppets wanted to add to the article. G&K as well as these editors want Wikipedia to violate our own WP:BLP policy by including falsely-sourced attacks into articles on historians they do not like. |
Mhorg's BLP vio
Initial timeline
- April 2021 Mhorg adds text to the article which accuses Zaryn of making statements that "were recognized" as “nationalist, anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false” by journalists of Gazeta Wyborcza, Polityka and NaTemat.pl [273]
- Note the weird phrasing ("statements were recognized as" ???) is an immediate WP:REDFLAG.NONE of these sources call him or his statements “anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false”. These words don't even occur in some of the sources. Oko Press – not mentioned in Mhorg’s text and probably not reliable (*) – calls him nationalist. I guess it's possible to infer these things from Zaryn quotes but that would be WP:OR and none of the sources call him that. This is a BLP.
- I removed this text [274]. Over the next two months, Mhorg, an account named Trasz [275] (blind revert, no explanation) (**), and several sock puppets (***) which showed up to this article kept restoring the text despite the fact that it was pointed out on talk several times the sources did not support the text.
- Mhorg canvassed FR on their talk to come to this article [276]. Mhorg has also done it with Gitz6666 recently [277]. Basically, when Mhorg gets in a disagreement they go and find someone that has a history with whoever is disagreeing with them and canvasses them.
- FR began editing the article and talk page only after Mhorg had left that message on their talk
- Initially FR acknowledged that Mhorg's text was NOT supported by sources and involved WP:OR [278] [279] [280] and tried to explain this to Mhorg. So far so good.
Discussion takes strange turn
- But then on talk, FR kept trying to argue about reliability of these sources – which except for Oko press – wasn’t even disputed. Rather the fact that the sources were misrepresented was the issue. This strawman-tactic is quite common in this topic: "sources are being misrepresented" - "but they're reliable!" - "what does that have to do with anything?" - "take it to RSN!" etc.
- When sock puppet accounts tried to restore this content FR said on talk they (sock puppet) were doing “good work” and said my removals of the BLP vio were not justified [281] despite acknowledging previously that sources didn’t support this text
Stonewalling and discussing in bad faith by Francois Robere
The exchange that followed was a bit bizarre, where FR accused me of removing sources which were never actually in the article in the first place and kept insisting that the text they previously acknowledged was problematic was in fact "well sourced". It looked to me at the time like they were simply "running interference" for the socks, so that they could add the BLPVIO attack to the article (these socks and other accounts were violating 500/30 btw) while they attempted to provide flimsy justifications for it on talk.
- I pointed out again to FR that the text wasn’t supported [282]
- FR said that some of the sources do call him “nationalist” and accuses me of not having read the sources, which is just plain absurd since we've been discussing this for a month.[283]
- I said that the “nationalist” label isn’t a problem, it’s the "anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false" that’s not in sources (and FR already knows this given their previous acknowledgement) and that we already went over this [284] [285]
- FR, bizarrely claimed this is new text not the old one. Apparently this is because one of the sources was swapped out for Newsweek (also not RS). Text is same though. (diff above)
- I pointed out again that regardless, the problem is with text being not supported by sources (diff above)
- FR responded with a personal attack, accusing me of again of not having read the sources, and claimed the text is “well sourced” [286] despite their previous acknowledgement that it actually wasn't (see above)
- I asked them to address the issue rather than make personal attacks and ask for sources AGAIN [287]
- FR replied that they'll only address the issue if I take back the accusation of canvassing against Mhorg I had made A MONTH EARLIER.[288] This is clear cut evidence of WP:STONEWALLING, deflecting, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and just plain "whataboutism"
- FR finally responds to my request with text from sources which doesn't support Wikipedia text and by basically going all in on the "text is well sourced" [289] argument even though previously they acknowledged it wasn't
- Discussion then is somewhat derailed by provocative comments from one of the sock puppet accounts
- I respond to FR [290] saying again that it's the same text as previously, that yes I have read the sources
The next part is especially illustrative:
- FR changed subjects in middle of discussion claiming that Zaryn said controversial things [291]. This claim was made with no sources provided.
- I said ok, which sources say that [292]
- FR says “in sources you deleted” [293] (wha??) and that they have already been "quoted elsewhere" (no they haven't)
- I say ok, which ones? [294]
- FR says “Korycki" [295].
… … …
Here’s the thing. Korycki was NEVER added to the article in the first place. It would have been impossible for me to remove them even IF I wanted to.
FR then provides 7 diffs which DO NOT show me removing anything about Korycki. This is a tactic where a user pretends that the quantity of diffs makes up for the fact that none of the diffs show anything like what they claim they show. For another example of this tactic see this summary by User:Barkeep49 of evidence where they note "François Robere replied with 12 diffs" - none of which show what FR claims) Also accuses me again of not having read the sources (which were never added to the article) and makes some WP:OR
Keep in mind that initially FR acknowledged that the text was NOT supported by sources but by now they've done a 180.
- I point this out and tell FR that’s not the text we’re discussing and ask him to stop saying that I haven't read the sources [296]
- FR responds with non-sequitur meaningless "So are we clear now on what the sources say?" [297] acting as if they had just won some argument rather than made a bunch of false accusations and misrepresentations
- I say, no I'm actually confused because you're claiming I removed sources which were never in the article [298]
- FR responds with a general accusation that I've been "disputing" stuff and "deleting" text (yes, the text unsupported by sources)
FR also split up the discussion on talk in weird ways so some of it is hard to follow. They also claimed that my point that the article was being turned into an attack page was now "moot" [299] because... more problematic text was added in addition to what Mhorg/sockpuppets tried to add. The falsely sourced info was still in the article. Then they tried to WP:WIKILAWYER what “unsupported” means (it means "it's not in the source", come on) [300].
FR also removed info per IJUSTDONTLIKEIT which WAS reliably sourced (Yad Vashem) from the article [301] because it made the subject look good (Zaryn's parents are Righteous Among Nations who rescued Jews during WW2). They also made blind reverts of my partial reverts of Szmenderowiecki's HUGE additions made without discussion or consensus [302](***)
Post script: Likely Icewhiz sock puppets showed up few months later and tried to give it another go [303] [304] [305]
Asterisks
(*) Reliability of oko press – you can look at this RSN discussion mentioned before [306]... but some of the !votes in it are Icewhiz sock puppets and the sock puppet who started it tried to "pair" GW (reliable) together with Oko (not so much) to sneak the second one through
(**) On June 2 account Trasz showed up out of nowhere and went on a revert spree – they reverted several of my edits on various articles that were months old, reverted old edits by GCB on other articles and reverted an edit by Piotrus [307][308][309][310][311][312]. The fact that on a single day Trasz decided to target old edits by these three users is/was strange and at the time I was suspicious - and still am - that they were asked by "someone" to do so. Here Trasz made a single comment on talk consisting of a personal attack [313], talking as if they knew me.
(***) The accounts were V.A.Obadiah and Nulliq. At the time both were in violation of 500/30. VA Obadiah had 14 edits, Nulliq 15. Each made a single IJUSTLIKEIT comment on talk [314][315]. Nulliq also went and reverted me on SAME other articles as Trasz [316], also quite strange as it was brand new account.
(****) On June 7th and 10th Szmenderowiecki (at the time also violating 500/30) dropped a huge amount of text (35k [317] and 27k [318]) into the article without discussion or consensus. Some of it was actually an improvement on Mhorg’s wording but it introduced other problems. FR edit warred to keep Szmender’s text “as is” without any revisions, BLP vios and all [319]. This is discussed in other's evidence so I don't go into it.
At the time I genuinely felt like FR was just messing with me and, with help from several socks and new accounts, was trying to simply create controversy for sake of controversy in order so that a WP:AE report or similar could be generated. All they and Mhorg had to do is simply rewrite the text so that it actually reflected the sources without inventing stuff. Zaryn's quotes would have probably been damning enough in and of themselves. Volunteer Marek 21:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
IBAN with User:Levivich
On March 13 2023 User:ScottishFinnishRadish imposed an interaction ban between Levivich and myself: [320] [321]. The IBAN appears to have been prompted by this personal attack that Levivich made in a discussion concerning the Signpost article: [322]. I'll quote it in full because, with one exception, I've never seen an established editor make a personal attack that is that insulting and offensive. Brand new users, throwaway accounts? Yes. Established editors no.
I legit pity you for being unable to admit the "Jewish welcome banner" caption was shocking, upsetting, and hurtful Holocaust distortion. You must have so much hate and pride in your heart that you seem unable to spare even a drop of empathy.
I gave Levivich a chance to strike the comment [323], which he did two hours later [324].
Levivich's comment was a follow up on their accusation that I was "defending Poeticbent's welcome banner hoax". This is/was completely false as was the accusation that I was "unable to admit" anything. Rather, I was just pointing out that the 2019 Arbitration Committee found that Poeticbent's false (and it was false) caption was an "apparent error" rather than a "deliberate hoax" [325] as initially Icewhiz, and then Levivich kept on insisting on Wikipedia. This means that Levivich's comment was also an indirect personal attack against all the Arbitrators on the 2019 committee who voted for that FoF.
I could and was thinking about posting more evidence regarding Levivich's behavior in this topic area but this seems pointless if indeed they decided to retire [326]. However, since sometimes these retirements are temporary I think the Committee should take this IBAN and make it permanent (SFR's sanction has the proviso that "This sanction will expire at the resolution of the Arbcom case"). Volunteer Marek 20:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Nihil novi
Ealdgyth mis-characterized a diff
Evidence not yet summarised; original concern not carried over to the /Summary but will be added if it does tie to future evidence/analysis |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Discussing an assertion by author Richard C. Lukas, Ealdgyth writes that Lukas' information had been unjustifiably "added [to the article] with Special:Diff/826962453 in 2018 by Nihil novi (talk · contribs)". Inspection shows that my entry (of 22 February 2018) had not at all involved the adding of information, Lukas' or anyone else's, but simply copyediting to improve the passage's English usage. Nihil novi (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Grabowski and Klein imply that I distort the history of the Holocaust
Evidence not yet summarised, may tie in to future evidence if counter-examples of negative editing are required |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's disconcerting to find myself named in the paper, "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust", by Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein (aka Chapmansh on Wikipedia). Being no Holocaust expert, I have limited myself in this subject matter to copyediting articles for clarity and English usage and to translating texts, especially from Polish and Latin, into English. For example, in the "Paradisus Judaeorum" article, the original English renderings of the Latin of the 5 versions (from the years 1606, 1664, 1672, 1685, and 1708-09, the first being the longest) of the pasquinade "The Kingdom of Poland Is..." ("Regnum Polonorum est..."), listing shortcomings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the situation of the Jews being but one of 19 in the first version), were so bad that I retranslated their Latin into English: on 17 March 2020 (at 10:24, 11:26, 22:04, 22:19, and 22:46) and on 18 March 2020 (at 5:55, 8:42, 9:21, and 9:23). I also, on various dates, copyedited the article's English text. I have been polite in my exchanges with fellow editors and have endeavored to keep an open mind on contentious questions (I can say the same of other editors, especially Piotrus). |
Evidence presented by K.e.coffman
GizzyCatBella
Presenting some earlier diffs to show that the issues continue since the imposition/lifting of the topic ban.
Competence to edit in the topic area
Summarized at /Summary#Identifying high quality sources
|
---|
References
|
Using BLP as a cudgel
Summarized at /Summary#Identifying high quality sources
|
---|
|
Sidetracking discussions
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
|
Substance-free contributions
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
|
Battleground mentality
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
|
Summary
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
I understand that there is a language barrier, which I sympathize with, but I believe that GizzyCatBella is a net negative in the topic area, whose positive contributions, mostly consisting of reporting suspected socks, do not outweigh the negative ones. They include: biased editing; failure to properly use sources; and disruptive contributions to discussions. This crosses into the territory of general inability to productively and neutrally contribute to article development. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by GhostOfDanGurney
GizzyCatBella POV pushing & procedure issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi monuments in Canada
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
(For background, I don't dive into this topic area often; I have Deletion sorting/Canada on my watchlist, which is how I became aware of the below AfD).
Other parties in the discussion |
Additional diffs re: GCB behaviour
- At Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators on December 26, 2022, Mzajac added an NPOV tag to the article[374] and started a talk page discussion regarding it.[375] GCB replied, pinging Mzajac, saying
Why don’t you clean up problems?
[376] - Two days later, GCB reverts an edit by an IP attempting to address the NPOV tag, with an edit summary of
30/500
.[377] GCB makes no attempt to contact the editor either on their talk page or the article talk page to inform them of the ECR regarding WWII in Poland (and how it would apply to an article seemingly about Canada) or what 30/500 even means. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Tryptofish
Summary at /Summary#Use_of_Jan_T._Gross_as_a_source
|
---|
Another RSN discussionAfter I read another evidence section above, I looked and found another, albeit slightly earlier, discussion at WP:RSN that may be useful to look at, and it's not yet in the list of noticeboard discussions.
Discussion started by a WikiEd person, over a disputed source used by a student in Chapmansh's course. Seems mostly to be consensus that the source is reliable, but needs to be used with attribution, a position expressed by Piotrus: [378]. Icewhiz is there, arguing that the book is so mainstream that attribution is unnecessary. Chapmansh makes this comment: [379], which seems to me to be reasonable. The day before, she also said: [380] on the same topic, a diff already presented in Piotrus' evidence. This speaks to the POV of the G&K paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) |
Dispute of ArbCom motion accuracy
Volunteer Marek has stated on case pages: [381], and elsewhere: [382], that ArbCom's motion, which implies that all personal information in the G&K paper had already been voluntarily posted onsite, may be factually inaccurate. ArbCom needs to check this assertion, and if necessary, make any needed corrections.
Misrepresentation of source material
This happened on a case page, but I want to make sure that it gets evaluated as evidence, because it is exactly in scope. Discussion at this section of the Analysis page, especially analysis by Zero0000. My view of the salient conclusion in this comment: [383].
Evidence presented by François Robere
Background
I was active in the topic area (TA) during 2018-2021, after which I mostly participated in noticeboard discussions.
Summary of G&K
G&K make many observations that my experience suggests are correct, which I summarize below (page numbers in parentheses). I can provide other examples as needed, but I encourage the committee to review the already-extensive evidence presented in past noticeboard discussions, which were never considered by admins as part of a bigger whole.
The historical narrative in Poland
- The "traditional" Holocaust narrative in Poland has been that of morality and heroism (3).
- The 1980's have seen some progress with this narrative, including Jan Błoński's famous Biedni Polacy patrzą na getto ("The Poor poles Look at the Ghetto"), and it was further shaken in the early 2000's, with Jan T. Gross's Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, and by the many publications that followed in its footsteps. By the end of the decade the "traditional" narrative has been largely superceded, but not without some backlash from (primarily) Polish nationalist circles and "fringe academics" (3-5).
- Poland's national remembrance organization, the Instytut Pamięci Narodowej (IPN), or "Institute of National Remembrance", has "temporarily embraced research on the most painful subjects of Polish-Jewish history" during that time, before shifting to the right in later years, partly because of the right-wing government's efforts to politicize the subject (4-5).
- One of the highlights of this politicization has been the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, which "instilled an atmosphere of fear, as it not only delegitimized findings like Gross's, but potentially exposed scholars, educators, teachers, and the reading public to civil and criminal charges" (5-6).
Wikipedia's content
The "traditional" Polish Holocaust narrative remains relevant on en.Wiki (6):
- The number of Polish victims of the Nazi occupation and the Holocaust has been inflated (7-8)
- Polish collaboration with the Germans has been minimized (9)
- The number of Poles who aided Jews, and the prevalence of such aid, have both been inflated (8-9, 13)
- The role of the underground movement in providing aid to Jews has been exaggerated (9-10)
- The danger from the Germans to Poles who provided aid to Jews has been emphasized, while the danger from fellow Poles - and by extension the prevalence of antisemitic perceptions among them - has been minimized (10-13)
- Poles' role in the Kielce pogrom has been minimized (13-14)
- Jews' wealth has been exaggerated (14-15)
- Jews' collaboration with the Germans has been oversimplified and overemphasized (15-17)
- Żydokomuna myths have been repeated (17)
- Jews' role in the death of Poles has been wildly exaggerated (17-20)
- Contemporary antisemitism in Poland has been minimized, for example in Jew with a coin (20-22)
- Richard Lukas's The Forgotten Holocaust has been overused (22-23)
- There were significant efforts by editors to both use and defend sources such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (23-27), Ewa Kurek (27-28, 48), Glaukopis (29-31), "Mark Paul" (31-34) and Peter Stachura (36-38)
- Editors repeatedly downplayed, or even denigrated reputable scholars such as Jan T. Gross (35 / 1, 2), Christopher Browning (35 / 1, 2), Berel Lang (35 / 1) and Antony Polonsky (36-38 / 1, 2, 3), as well as Shmuel Krakowski ([384], [385]) and even Grabowski himself ([386])
Editors' conduct
- Editors such as Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, who spend considerable time on-Wiki, understand the system well and have considerable "social capital", are exceedingly difficult to challenge - especially when they back each other (40-41)
- Piotrus and VM have "purged" criticisms of the IPN (40 / Special:PermaLink/1100791296#Mass removal of criticisms)
- They and others have prevented a short, neutrally-worded paragraph about property restitution from being included in The Holocaust in Poland (41 / Special:PermaLink/1092871024#Survey)
- Several of these editors seem to be communicating off-Wiki (41-42 / WP:EEML)
- Piotrus, VM, MyMoloboaccount and My very best wishes were members of the EEML (42 / WP:EEML)
- Piotrus has offered other editors to communicate by email (42 / Special:PermaLink/843149146#WP:EMAIL, Special:PermaLink/863373791#WP:EMAIL)
- Piotrus has canvassed on pl.Wiki (42 / AN thread)
- Some disagreements between editors are no doubt honest, while others appear "tactical" (42-43)
- VM, with others, has frustrated several months' worth of attempts to improve Jan Żaryn (43-44, 50)
- Incivility in the TA is common (44-45)
- VM uses profanities and personally attacks other editors with zeal (45-46[1])
- On some articles, VM's contributions constitute little more than deleting other editors' additions (46 / xtools, xtools)
- Editors have been worn down and driven away from the TA again and again (46-47 / Ealdgyth, Ermenrich, SlimVirgin, as well as Levivich,[387][388] Mhorg,[389] Buidhe[390] and myself).
- Admins are not exempt from these stresses either (49 / JzG, Barkeep49, Ymblanter, Ymblanter, as well as El C[391] and probably Tamzin[392][393])
- "Content" and "conduct" issues, particularly those covered by the essay, overlap (49-51)
- The community has failed to address problems of subtle POV-pushing and source misrepresentation in the TA, while sometimes sanctioning those who report them, leading to a general aversion from even trying to (50-53). As Elinruby put it: "polite distortions of the truth seem to prevail in wiki proceedings over attempts to defend it that also express irritation"[394]
- While the sourcing restriction was an improvement, the previous ARC did not resolve the TA's problems (51-52)
- T-bans have been lifted for the wrong reasons more than once (53-54)
- Joe Roe and El C deserve credit for realizing the effect their and others' attitudes had on the TA (54-55)
- Icewhiz's "socking" caused various problems in the TA, one being that it opened an avenue of attack against other editors as alleged "socks" (55-56)
References
- ^
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899921948
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899919573
- "Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 2," September 26, 2016, Special:PermaLink/1079703699#!votes
- "Talk:JanŻaryn/Archive1," June 8, 2021, Special:PermaLink/1070448193#RFC_on_François_Robere's_second_proposal:_Views_and_lead
- "Talk:Koniuchy massacre/Archive3," November 15, 2018, Special:PermaLink/914543764#Religious_prejudice
- "Talk:Koniuchy massacre/Archive3," November 21, 2018, Special:PermaLink/914543764#Another_false_edit_summary_by_Icewhiz._Another_false_and_nonsensical_accusation_of_BLP_vio_by_Icewhiz._While_he_commits_BLP_vio_himself
- "Talk:Home Army/Archive 4," May 2, 2018, Special:PermaLink/1091452685#AK_units_hunting_down_groups
- "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 181," November 27, 2021, Special:PermaLink/1064391779
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899925262
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899921948
- "User talk:Volunteer Marek," August 3, 2021, Special:PermaLink/1036971518#SPI
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248," February 2019, Special:PermaLink/1079521824#Statement_by_VM
- "Talk:Nalibo-ki_massacre," 13:48, March 15, and 05:22, March 18, 2018, Special:PermaLink/1026103883
Volunteer Marek
Attacks, aspersions, hounding and general incivility
VM's T-ban, put in place during the 2019 ArbCom case,[395] was lifted on 18 December 2020.[396] Since then:
- 02:58, 26 January 2021, 03:14, 26 January 2021 Asked to AGF and warned against making PAs by Paul Siebert
- On Talk:Zygmunt Krasiński and related discussions:
- 19:54, 19 February 2021 Makes up an elaborate scenario where I intentionally violated an I-ban, then accuses me of trying to WP:GAME it
- 19:33, 23 February 2021, 20:15, 23 February 2021 Puts that and a whole bunch more on RSN. This was so stressful at the time, that I asked for PP for the board.[397]
- 20:39, 23 February 2021 Warned against "misuse of RSN" by El C (admin)
- 21:20, 23 February 2021 Puts that rant in its own WP:ATTACKPAGE
- 15:25, 24 February 2021 I still wanted to address the content problem, but I didn't want people to read what he wrote about me, so before posting on NPOVN I collapsed his earlier attack as "unhelpful". When he sees this he un-collapses the attack, and I'm forced to delete the NPOVN post.[398][399])
- 17:43, 22 March 2021 Another warning by El C (admin)
- 18:20, 18 June 2021 "Please stop restoring edits by indef banned users (Icewhiz) particularly since your long term on wiki relationship with them raises the issue of WP:MEATPUPPETRY" (refuted [400][401])
- 18:43, 19 June 2021 Unclear insinuation about K.e.coffman
- 18:25, 18 June 2021 "That’s a funny way to “count” (sic). Is that the “new math”?" (he's also factually wrong)
- 19:40, 18 June 2021 "I know this is, like, very inconvenient, since then you can’t line up the little pieces on the two sides of the “bad guys” and “good guys” line but this isn’t a Hollywood movie." (also factually wrong [402])
- 01:04, 19 June 2021 Asked to avoid making accusations in edit summaries by K.e.coffman
- 14:17, 19 June 2021 Asked to AGF by Brigade Piron
- 19:37, 19 June 2021 "The fact that you seem to purposefully exclude a key piece of info... will suggest to readers that you’re not filing this with WP:CLEANHANDS... You might want to take out all the falsehoods before you file this, though I’m not sure how much you gonna have left at that point" (to Szmenderowiecki, after reading a message they left on my TP [403])
- 08:00, 7 July 2021 "let’s recount how your wiki-collaborator Icewhiz was topic banned for BLP violations, specifically (as in the ArbCom provided the diffs in their decision) with regard to the same Ewa Kurek who you just compared to a Holocaust denier" (the comparison was actually David Silberklang and Berel Lang's)
- 15:07, 7 July 2021 El C (admin) refuses to get involved
- 08:50, 11 July 2021, 08:56, 11 July 2021 Accidentally reverts another editor on K.e.coffman's TP. It seems despite banishing the latter from his TP several months earlier, he continued to follow hers
- 18:38, 3 August 2021 Ymblanter (admin) tries to block him and another editor for "edit warring" and "disruptive editing, tag-teaming [and] reverts" (respectively). We all know how that ended...[404][405][406]
- 02:00, 22 November 2021 "it seems that the only reason some editors are so adamant on including this source... is simply because they want to "stick it to Piotrus". I think it's very clear that insistence on this particular, very flawed and unnecessary source, is to both grief Piotrus (and some other editors) and at the same time "protect Icewhiz's legacy" or something like that."
- 20:17, 26 November 2021 "This whole thing is here simply because a banned editor and his friends and a bunch of sock puppets went and spammed this incident into as many articles as they could as a form of 'revenge' for the fact that said editor got side banned from all WMF projects"
- 18:42, 27 November 2021 "all of this is a whole bunch of bad faithed ridiculous HOOEY pushed by Icewhiz's friends and meatpuppets on Wikipedia (since he can't do that himself, seeing as he's indefinetly banned for, among other things, making death threats agains editors' families). These friends - let's put all our cards on the table here - are Levivich and Francois Robere (usually supported in these endeavors by various sock puppets of Icewhiz or other indef banned users)."
- 19:01, 27 November 2021 "Levivich's write up is a masterwork of cynical sophistry, strategic omission and manipulation"
- 22:19, 24 June 2022 When Szmenderowiecki files an AE as per arbs' instructions (see Wugapodes's comment), VM posts the following: "Szmenderowiecki filed a WP:AE report because… someone disagreed with them (civility, politely) in a discussion???... I don’t even understand what policy these are supposed to violate. This seems to boil down to “how dare you have an opinion different from mine!!!!” I mean, I’ve seen some ridiculously spurious WP:AE reports over the years but this has got to be some kind of record for spuriousness..es..esses(?) Just ban Szmenderowiecki from WP:AE and tell them to quit wasting people’s time"
- 03:09, 23 August 2022 Asked to "keep cool" by L'Origine du monde
- 17:45, 3 October 2022 Beshogur notes VM's aggression in articles on Russia and Ukraine
- 22:43, 20 October 2022 Accuses me of making an attempt "to renew [Icewhiz's harassment campaign]"
- 20:50, 28 November 2022 Again with combative attitude and mass deletions.
- 03:46, 15 January 2023, 04:00, 15 January 2023 While Callanecc (admin) admits that VM has a "history of personal attacks and/or casting aspersions", they "[do not] believe that a TBAN or block would be appropriate at this stage", and instead issue an "enhanced warning" in the form of an "indefinite civility restriction in the ARBEE topic area". Curiously, in the same discussion Synotia was blocked for making a single derogatory comment,[407], and Michael60634 - "a fairly new account" - was T-banned for six months. In another case, where an editor made improper comments that weren't as severe as VM's and without his long history of such, Callanecc's first instinct was to propose a T-ban.[408]
- 04:51, 25 January 2023 Accusing Cukrakalnis of abusing a noticeboard.
- 00:26, 2 February 2023 Accuses PilotSheng of edit-warring and WP:POINT
- 20:14, 4 February 2023 Accuses Alaexis of "cherry-picking"
- 03:52, 10 February 2023, 06:36, 10 February 2023 Aspersions against G&K, two BLPs one of whom is also an editor. A similar comment by another editor was seen by Drmies (admin) as "beyond the pale".[409] At the same time, an account by the same name makes similar comments on social media.[410][411][412]
- March 2023 Assorted accusations against Grabowski, Klein, HaeB and Groceryheist.
Also cf. G&K on incivility (44-45), profanities (45-46), social capital (40-41), and editors and admins being driven out of the TA (46-47, 49).
ctop|Summarised at /Summary#François_Robere_and_Volunteer_Marek, /Summary#Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today Act of 2017 and /Summary#Previous_sanctions_of_Volunteer_Marek}}
- 20:55, 22 December 2020 "Are you confused about which one of the many disputes you’ve currently engaged yourself in, you’re commenting on? Understandable, since you’re involved in like half a dozen of them (all of which you started)" (to Buidhe)
- 15:09, 23 December 2020 Asked to avoid personal comments by me
- 21:47, 1 February 2021 "I suggest you actually follow the developments here rather than, as the superficial nature of your comment suggests, just reflexively picking a side" (to K.e.coffman)
- 23:15, 3 February 2021 Falsely accuses me of stalking him (refuted by Buidhe [413])
- 23:33, 3 February 2021 Again accuses me of stalking him
- 00:14, 6 February 2021 "Buidhe made big controversial changes without bothering to discuss them. Buidhe edit warred when these changes were challenged. Buidhe then tried to get their way by filing spurious AE report. Buidhe then couldn't help themselves and began edit warring again before any compromise could be worked out. Buidhe used a false edit summary which claimed WP:FALSECON. Buidhe removed multiple reliable sources from the article. Support for Buidhe has consisted of nothing more than some incivil substance free comments from you [FR] and generalities from one other editor [K.e.coffman?]. As an added bonus you began stalking my edits across multiple articles ... as some kind of payback or strategy or something. When I requested you stop, you doubled down on the rudeness and incivility"
- 09:12, 11 February 2021 Warned against "using [Icewhiz's] specter as a blunt instrument" by El C (admin)
- 03:20, 15 February 2021 Again accuses me of stalking him (refuted by K.e.coffman [414])
- 15:35 18 March 2021 T&S refuse to intervene, stating that "there are sufficient community governance actions available... to handle the issue", and that "it doesn't appear that you or anyone else has attempted to report ongoing personal attacks or harassment by VM to either Arbcom... or a noticeboard in the past two years... so there's no way to confirm that the community isn't willing to handle the matter". My subsequent email, explaining why no reports have been being made, remains unanswered
- 18:47, 27 April 2021 Accuses Mhorg of canvassing
- 18:20, 19 June 2021 "The amount of text that was dedicated to Poland was UNDUE and served as a COATRACK. I’m bothered by the fact that you’ve shown up on several articles in the recent past solely to revert me" (refuted [415])
- 09:42, 16 July 2021 Follows me to Guerillero's TP, where he last posted in 2014,[416] then attacks me and another editor. Guerillero ends up warning me, instead of VM.
- 20:31, 31 July 2021 Reports an edit I made to Guerillero, but gives the wrong timing (it was two weeks, not "a couple of days") and misrepresents my previous message ("agitating for sanctions"). Guerillero finds the two edits related and decides to block me, ignoring the fact that if that were the case then WP:BANEX should apply.[417]
- 03:24, 8 August 2021 Follows me to Barkeep49's TP and accuses me of supporting Icewhiz in "fabricating quotations... pretending sources said what they didn't say, mis-attributing sources... [and] arguing for reliability of a same source in one instance then trying to get that same source banned"
- 05:22, 12 February 2023 Accuses me of "supporting [Icewhiz]" and "[making] numerous efforts to have him rehabilitated and to relitigate the case, even after you became well aware of his extensive harassment of Wikipedians". He strikes this after I approach Callanecc later that day.[418] Though VM present no evidence that this behavior is in any way reciprocal, Callanecc proposes a 2-way I-ban as a solution.
- 03:35, 3 April 2023 Still follows my TP.
|}
hat|Out of scope}}
- 20:24, 8 July 2021 Asked to avoid bad faith accusations by Girth Summit (admin)
- 22:56, 4 October 2021 "First you show up here to tag team with Levivich and brand new accounts that just scream WP:DUCK... you have absolutely no problem trying to punish [another editor] on the basis of (false) allegations YOU make against OTHER editors???... Because you and Levivich hold a grudge against me and blame me for getting your wiki buddy Icewhiz banned??? (Guess what, he actually got himself banned by making violent threats against other editors) This is a low even for ANI on Wikipedia"
- 00:32, 6 October 2021 Warned by Wugapodes against disruptive behavior (admin)
- 06:39, 7 November 2022 Blocked by Tamzin (admin) for WP:GAMING 1RR. Like with Ymblanter, Tamzin too is forced to unblock him and even apologize.[419][420][421]
|} hat|Not summarized yet.}}
- 01:12, 2 February 2021 Asked to avoid "personalising the discussion and assuming bad faith right off the bat" by K.e.coffman
- 21:19, 4 February 2021 Admonished by Generalrelative
- 13:29, 9 February 2021 Asked to ping editors against whom he makes threats and baseless accusations (by Boynamedsue)
- 04:48, 10 February 2021 Asked for civility by K.e.coffman; replies by banning her from his TP, misrepresenting my comments, then scouring my TP for "dirt"
- 16:21, 26 August 2021 Claims that a law on post-war property restitution is "only tangentially related to the Holocaust", then accuses me of "WP:COATRACKing"
- 05:35, 14 July 2022 EvergreenFir (admin) notes that VM has been taken to AE 22 times
|}
BATTLEGROUND, ABF and competence
VM seems to have a problem assuming good faith with editors he deeply disagrees with; he presents their edits in the worst possible light, accuses them of lying and manipulation, and deletes their edits in bulk. This leads to a lot of needless friction and derailed discussions (naturally, there's much overlap between this and his PA and hounding behavior), but also to errors one wouldn't expect from an editor as seasoned as he. It also impedes the training of less experienced editors (Mhorg and Szmenderowiecki in 2021, Gitz in 2022, and myself in 2018), who instead of being instructed in good editing practices and collaborative work, are shown adversarialism and tracked towards conduct dispute boards.
- 19:06, 15 February 2021 Seems to believe editors are there to "punish" Poland
- 16:55, 19 February 2021 Removes all mentions of antisemitism from Zygmunt Krasiński, then when I ask him about it he adds one back,[422] and claims that "it was still there".[423][424]
- 23:31, 26 April 2021, 15:34, 7 June 2021 (throughout the discussion) Claims that some text was unsourced, OR, or misrepresented the source, even when it's a direct, representative quote.[425][426]
- 23:25, 27 May 2021 Same.[427]
- 06:17, 8 June 2021, 15 June 2021, 03:47, 19 June 2021 Same.
- 13:00, 9 June 2021 Threads his comments improperly,[428] then complains about others doing so.[429][430]
- 18 June 2021 Removes a claim attributed to Robert Bakiewicz as "who cares what a neo Nazi thinks", but takes out the foreign minister of Poland along the way.
- 23:48, 22 June 2021 Misreads the instructions ("where bold text is present, only [that] is in question"), then reacts aggressively when he's corrected.
- 22:19, 24 June 2022 When Szmenderowiecki files an AE against GCB, as per arbs' instructions (see comment by Wugapodes), VM claims that "[he] filed a WP:AE report because… someone disagreed with them (civility, politely) in a discussion???... I don’t even understand what policy these are supposed to violate. This seems to boil down to “how dare you have an opinion different from mine!!!!” I mean, I’ve seen some ridiculously spurious WP:AE reports over the years but this has got to be some kind of record for spuriousness..es..esses(?) Just ban Szmenderowiecki from WP:AE and tell them to quit wasting people’s time"
- 15:38, 28 June 2021 Same.
- 08:08, 28 June 2021 Accuses me of trying to push false content (refuted [431])
- 20:48, 15 August 2021, 23:32, 15 August 2021 Within an hour and a half of me finishing a well-sourced stub, he starts deleting it. He appears to haven't even read what he was deleting.[432]
- 06:42, 18 August 2021 Restores edits by another editor that contain plagiarism and basic errors.[433] (#5-6)
- 09:55, 26 August 2021 Removes an admittedly clumsy, but well-sourced statement, and replaces it with an unsourced one. When I revert him, he reverts me back,[434] then accuses me of "trying to start an edit war".[435]
- 19:02, 23 August 2022 Asked to avoid edit-warring by WikiHannibal; responds by accusing them of "trying to intimidate someone over a possible content disagreement".
- 22:08, 18 October 2022, 22:11, 18 October 2022, 22:10, 18 October 2022, 22:54, 18 October 2022, 23:02, 18 October 2022, 23:45, 18 October 2022, 23:52, 18 October 2022, 22:43, 20 October 2022 Deletes Political editing on Wikipedia shortly after I create it, then follows me to Lovkal's TP (which he never visited), then to Levivich's TP (which he quotes to Lovkal), then goes to Bishonen's TP to attack me there, then leaves a message on my TP (which he was asked not to touch), and when I delete it goes to Doug Weller's TP and links it there. Finally, he goes to Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia and accuses me of making "an attempt to renew [Icewhiz's harassment campaign]". It's clear from his comment to Bishonen that he didn't even read what he was deleting, and when confronted offers precious little in terms of reasoning.[436][437] The cleanup he leaves for others.[438][439]
- 19:27, 10 February 2023, 21:31, 12 February 2023 Claims that links in the G&K essay don't work, even when he's told (by Szmenderowiecki, HEB and myself) that all he needs to do is copy-paste them.
- 08:05, 5 March 2023 Misreads what TrangaBellam wrote[440] and accuses them of making false accusations. They weren't.[441]
- 22:42, 5 March 2023 Repeatedly distorts what HaeB writes, as pointed out by the latter.
- 00:06, 8 March 2023 Misreads what Levivich wrote, then when he explains it, accuses him of "Wikilawyering and manipulation".
- 00:23, 11 March 2023 While he diffs to a discussion where it's made clear that at least four editors have left the TA due to his and others' behavior,[442] VM believes that "the only people that have genuinely been 'driven off' via extensive harassment and abuse are those that opposed Icewhiz" (emphasis mine).
Also cf. G&K on "stonewalling" (43-44, 50), incivility (44-45), deletionism (46), and editors and admins being driven out of the TA (46-47, 49).
"Meatpuppetry" and potential off-wiki coordination
Piotrus asking for emails
April 2020
- On 24 March 2020 I file an AE against GizzyCatBella on T-ban vios.[443]
- GCB replies 13 hours later and accuses me of "hounding" her.[444]
- Piotrus replies two hours later, defends GCB and subtly suggests that I was at fault.[445]
- The next day, MyMoloboaccount returns from a month-long hiatus and makes a similar accusation to that made by GCB.[446] MMA only makes one other edit that day.
- On 29 March GCB posts on my TP.[447]
- A few hours later, so does Piotrus, who offers himself as mediator and adviser.[448] GCB would later become his mentee.[449]
- A day and a half later, MMA arrives too.[450]
- The same day I'm also contacted by then-admin RexxS, who threatens to block me unless I can explain certain edits.[451] At that point RexxS is yet to check the articles' histories (they did later on [452]), and so doesn't know that I self-reverted, and why.
- On the night of 2 April, Volunteer Marek, whose T-ban was still in effect and with whom I've had little contact for a while, posts on my TP three times, each triggering a "ping" for RexxS, despite being reverted and asked not to do so.[453][454][455]
- Piotrus comments again, again subtly suggesting that some sort of sanction is needed.[456]
- Around the same time, Piotrus, VM and GCB all post to RexxS's TP, starting three separate threads.[457][458][459]
24 April Icewhiz SPI
- On 24 April Piotrus opens an SPI request and states that he will "inform" other editors.[460] There's no evidence that he did.[461]
- The next day GCB resumes editing after a two week hiatus[462] and asks an admin whether she can comment on the SPI.[463]
- On 26 April VM arrives.[464]
- On the same day MMA resumes editing after a 25 day hiatus.[465][466] He comments on the thread two days later.[467]
Zygmunt Krasiński and The Undivine Comedy
- On 18 May Piotrus starts editing on Zygmunt Krasiński.[468]
- On 25 May he is reverted by Mellow Boris.[469]
- The very minute MB finished his edits, VM accidentally reverts Piotrus, then self-reverts.[470][471] This are his first edits to this article.
- The next day, MB creates The Undivine Comedy.[472]
- An hour later GizzyCatBella reverts him on Zygmunt Krasiński, in her first edit to the article.[473]
- 15m later, VM deletes The Undivine Comedy.[474].
- 20m after that, GCB arrives and starts rewriting the article.[475]
- Piotrus joins them the following morning.[476]
Encyklopedia II wojny światowej
- On 25 May the source is challenged on RSN.[477]
- Piotrus replies the same day.[478]
- The following night MMA returns from a 10 day hiatus and comments in support of Piotrus.[479]
- Piotrus's reply.
- In the same thread Piotrus questions me on how I arrived at the discussion; I ask why he didn't ask MMA that question, and he goes silent.[480]
WP:AfD/Polish invasion of Czech Republic
- On 15 June Darwinek starts an AfD on the Polish invasion of Czech Republic.
- At 07:05 the next day, VM comments.[481]
- Then, at 07:10, Piotrus.[482]
- Then, at 10:13, GCB.[483]
- And MMA at 16:12.[484] Between 4 June and 1 July he makes no other edits.
History of Poland
- Oliszydlowski implies on two occasions that discussion had taken place on History of Poland which has no record on-Wiki ("we also suspected", "we disagree to").[485][486]
- They do not reply when confronted.[487]
"LGBT ideology-free zones"
- On 14 July Chrisdevelop challenges the title of the article.[488]
- GCB reacts several hours later.[489]
- Piotrus comments the next day.[490]
- MMA does his first edit in two weeks the day after.[491]
Szmalcownik and Żegota
- On 19 July I edit Szmalcownik.[492]
- Piotrus replies the next day.[493]
- We discuss and modify the page through the next seven days.[494]
- On 28 July, MMA, who has never edited the page before, appears after six days off-Wiki and makes a series of edits.[495]
- The same day he appears in a discussion on Talk:Żegota#Risks to Żegota operatives from neighbours - a page he only edits once a year or so.[496][497]).[498]
AfDs
- As of July 2020, GCB has voted in 47 AfDs,[499] in 35 of which Piotrus voted as well. She voted with Piotrus 32 times (arguably 33); and supported him in all 21 AfDs which he opened himself. Many of the AfDs concern fantasy fiction, which is an interest of his, but not hers.
I've no later numbers, since an I-ban was imposed between GCB and myself in August 2020 and I hadn't checked them since.
Historical policy of the Law and Justice party and User:Tino Cannst
- On 20 October Piotrus gets into a series of arguments with Buidhe on the Historical policy of the Law and Justice party.[500][501]
- On 23 October MMA returns to Wikipedia after almost 2.5 months,[502] comments on the article's DYK[503] and calls for its deletion,[504] then files an AE against Buidhe for "falsifying sources".[505]
- MMA's also reverts edits by User:Tino Cannst (later verified as an SP of Stan Tincon) on several articles,[506][507][508][509] along with Piotrus,[510][511][512][513][514] GCB[515][516] and VM.[517][518][519][520][521][522]
Axis powers
- On 1 February 2021 Piotrus gets T-banned for a month for canvassing on pl.Wiki for a discussion on the Axis powers. [523] Later that year he would state his belief that "WP:CANVASS is a classic example of what paves the road to hell".[524][525]
Institute of National Remembrance
- On 3 March I criticize the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) at Talk:Witold Pilecki#Recent changes.
- On 4 March Piotrus makes an edit to the article,[526] removing an interview with historian Gideon Greif.
- Between 03:09 and 07:38 the next day Piotrus and VM make 38 edits to the article.[527][528]
- On 08:20 GCB arrives and makes a small edit,[529] which is then "capped" by a longer edit of the same content by Piotrus.[530] Since GCB and I have an I-ban, interleaving a small edit by hers between those of Piotrus and VM, stops me from reverting the whole series.
- On 7 March, after I post on RSN, MMA returns from a twenty day hiatus and comments on RSN, though on a different discussion.[534]
Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017
- On 18 June Volunteer Marek cuts 17k from Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017.[535]
- The next day, I start a discussion on the TP.[536]
- Piotrus quickly joins the discussion after not having touched the article in two years.[537][538]
- On 26 June I start an RfC.[539]
- Later that day MMA comes back from a three month hiatus and votes.[540][541] He also hasn't touched the article in two years.[542]
WP:HOAXLIST
- On 2 August Volunteer Marek removes the Warsaw concentration camp from WP:HOAXLIST.[543] He is quickly reverted.[544]
- The next day GCB repeats VM's edit.[545] She hasn't touched this article before.
- Both GCB and VM were blocked later that day for "disruptive editing, tag-teaming [and] reverts" and "edit warring", respectively. They're unblocked in a matter of hours, after some intense pressure, and a threat to "desysop" the blocking admin.[546][547][548]
Property restitution in Poland
- On 15 August I create Property restitution in Poland.
- An hour and a half later VM appears and starts deleting it.[549]
- The next morning Piotrus joins.[550]
- Later that day MMA appears after two weeks away.[551] He hasn't touched The Holocaust in Poland, the only article that I linked this to, since February.[552]
At this point I left the TA, so my record of later events is scant.
Talk:Warsaw concentration camp#RfC: Haaretz article on errors in WP article about the Warsaw concentration camp
- On 6 November Szmenderowiecki starts an RfC on a source that mentions Piotrus and VM.
- Piotrus, VM and GCB "bludgeon" the discussion, while edit-warring on the same issue at WP:HOAXLIST and Reliability of Wikipedia,[553][554] and attacking the source and its work (cf. WP:BLPTALK).
- MMA appears several days later; he hasn't touched this article since 2019.[555]
WP:AE#Michael60634
- On 8 January 2023 VM files reports Michael60634 on AE.
- The next day, GCB joins the discussion.
- On 13 January, I comment on VM's PAs.
- The next day Piotrus arrives, and admonishes me for commenting in a discussion where GCB is participating. Piotrus, a veteran editor, no doubt knows that participation in the same discussions is allowed under WP:BAN, if for no other reason than having previously started that discussion on WP:BAN (see above).
During this ARC
- On 30 March, in preparation for this case, I make a note on my TP summarising some events related to the I-ban imposed by Guerillero. I name neither VM nor GCB.[556]
- On 2 April GCB asks whether she can post evidence against me.[557] Despite the ban, GCB clearly follows my TP.
- The next day, VM posts here, as well as on Guerillero's TP. Despite being asked to stay away from my TP, VM still clearly follows it.
Also cf. G&K on social capital (40-41), Piotrus and VM purging criticisms of the IPN (40), off-Wiki communication (41-42), the EEML (42), Piotrus's canvassing (42), Jan Żaryn (43-44, 50), editors being driven away from the TA (46-47), admins' stress (49), and the community's failure to address problems of subtle POV-pushing and source misrepresentation (50-53).
Evidence presented by Andreas Kolbe
Grabowski and Klein's essay violates the Wikimedia Foundation's Universal Code of Conduct as written
The Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct was approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on December 9, 2020. [558] The Universal Code of Conduct is in force. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project. [559] The Code's "Unacceptable behaviour" section includes "harassment". The definition of "harassment" includes the following: Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects. As the Committee is no doubt aware, the essay by Grabowski and User:Chapmansh shares other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, [...] without their explicit consent, and shares information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines on March 9, 2023. [560] Once again, the Wikimedia Foundation has stated that these guidelines may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project. [561] The m:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines state: Enforcement of the UCoC by local governance structures will be supported in multiple ways. Communities will be able to choose from different mechanisms or approaches based on several factors such as: the capacity of their enforcement structures, approach to governance, and community preferences. Some of these approaches can include: • An Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) for a specific Wikimedia project Will the Committee take action in this case to enforce the Wikimedia Foundation's Universal Code of Conduct? --Andreas JN466 18:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC) |
Grabowski and Klein's views of other scholars
Issues of scholarly standing are out of scope. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Grabowski and User:Chapmansh's dismissive views of certain scholars are not universally shared:
|
Evidence presented by Barkeep49
February 2023 article creations by TrangaBellam
This came to my attention via HEB's evidence. I plan to give a more detailed summary later but wanted to put this into evidence now so people could know I'm looking at/thinking about it.
In February 2023, TrangaBellam created 7 new articles (source). 3 of them were in the topic area of this case and 1 of them was related:
- Tomasz Greniuch - Polish historian, formerly employed by the Institute of National Remembrance
- Mariusz Bechta Polish historian and publisher, affiliated with the Institute of National Remembrance
- Glaukopis Polish history journal catering to the far right
- Marcin Zaremba - Polish historian (related)
At Glaukopis Piotrus placed a {{NPOV}} tag on the article, which was reverted by TrangaBellam, who started a talk page discussion, and which was re-added by GizzyCatBella. The specific concern was about whether the article contained an undue amount of criticism. After discussion of the sources by those three editors there was a rough consensus that the article was following the policy and the tag was removed.
At Mariusz Bechta, TrangaBellam posted some sources and a short discussion between her and GizzyCatBella followed.
Evidence presented by Mhorg
I started contributing a little bit in this topic area from March 2021 to July 2021. As I wrote earlier: "I left for other topics, as collaboration was at a low point and no improvements could be made on the articles."
Volunteer Marek removed sourced contents with undue/notability motivations
Not summarised for now. Without context these are just diffs and not evidence of anything |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Volunteer Marek and tag-teaming with My very best wishes
Not summarised for now. There are some potential indications of collaboration, but the evidence does not definitively support them |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
My experience in this topic-area is minimal, so I do not know whether VM actually acted inappropriately. What I can say is that IF this has indeed happened, it would not have been possible without the help of other colleagues who punctually step in to support him. What I can suggest to the investigators, is to carefully monitor the past interactions between VM and the user My very best wishes.
|
Minor issues: Volunteer Marek and the way of discussing with users
First point summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Mhorg
|
---|
|
Evidence presented by Chumchum7
Dispute with VM that led to Gitz's TBAN on Ukraine [570] spilled into Poland topic area, demonstrated by slow edit war, misleading edit summary and source handling
User:Zero0000's recent observations [571][572] increase my concern about the pattern of behaviour by Gitz in this topic area, known to be cared about by his perceived adversary, VM. Note I have disagreements with VM on the record; despite valuable experience that helps Wikipedia, his temper needs to cool down - especially in response to WP:BAIT.
Gitz at Jedwabne Pogrom, instead of keeping to talk page amid WP:BRD, repeatedly removes a pop-out excerpt in the lede that had consensus for months, from Stola (2003): [573]
This in short time without gaining consensus:
Afaics Gitz ignored my WP:CITENEED editsum where I restore the content: [578]
I'm not convinced by Gitz’s editsum use of WP:LEADCITE, because that guidance states: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." This was why the Stola excerpt was added in the first place, months ago, establishing consensus and longterm article stability.
Afaics, after I restored the content to the lede, Gitz further removed the Stola (2003) excerpt on the editsum grounds it is "repetition" after he already added that very excerpt lower down the article, to a place where it is not of direct relevance to the preceding line of content:[579] So afaics, Gitz caused the repetition of Stola himself: when I restored it to the lede, he then used that repetition as fresh grounds for removal of the Stola pop-out from the lede.
Motive? On Jedwabne Pogrom Talk page, Gitz says: "The Germans were the triggering factor, the necessary condition: without them, there would have been no pogrom. The local population, however, was not directed by the Germans, but acted autonomously." Gitz may want this to be true, but it isn’t supported by the source.
The Stola pop-out excerpt says, "members of the administration, usually with German gendarmes, visited Polish residents" and refers to the Polish murderers as "conscripts".
Presence of German armed force is verifiable to the excerpt; by definition, conscripts are not autonomous. Stola and Gitz have differing points of view, so he buried Stola. Whatever convincing arguments Gitz may or may not have to remove the Stola excerpt from the lede, this was not the way to do it.
Gitz could have learned from his TBAN; much like GCB (hat-tip K.e.coffman), he seems aggrieved rather than educated by it. Rather than imposing his point of view on Wikipedia by repeatedly removing the Stola pop-out from the lede, Gitz could have established consensus in a collegial manner on the Talk page.
Instead, we have Gitz's adversarial editing at Jedwabne Pogrom then evidence from it filed against his perceived rival: [580]. Potentially boomerang #2.
Interaction ban is not the solution, it will cause proxy fights through provocative editing in the topic area without direct contact. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Callanecc
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Volunteer Marek
|
---|
I haven't seen this presented yet so I thought I'd add it. Clerks - if it's already been noted please feel free to remove this section. In January I gave Volunteer Marek an indefinite 'civility' restriction under discretionary sanctions with the following wording:
This was in response to this AE thread and a pattern of responding with incivility, accusations and personal attacks usually in response to some sort of baiting. Evidence for this is in the AE thread. No comment on its general effectiveness as I've not looked through VM's contribs to check for any breaches but I will note that VM has contacted me offwiki with an editor behaviour concern rather than posting it onwiki which is essentially what this restriction was designed to do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
|
Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable
( withdrawn )
Evidence presented by Paul Siebert
POV-laden edits and Brownian ratchet
Not summarised for now. More of an analysis/talk page comment. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
First, I would like to point ArbCom's attention at one dangerous phenomenon: |
My Very Best Wishes
Not evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Although I initially didn't want to request for any sanctions, I realized that there is one exception. I am requesting that severe action should be taken against one user @My very best wishes:. In connection to that I am requesting an extension of the standard word limit, or, if ArbCom considers it preferrable, I can submit the below section as a separate case. During last decade, I am avoiding interaction with that user: I do not comment on his posts and do not respond to him, because I decided to let this conflict die. However, the post made by MVBW during the TangraBellam AE demonstrated that he continues to make "good faith mistakes", which create a very toxic environment that make it impossible for good users to edit articles productively. One reason why I essentially stopped editing many of WWII related topics is that there is a constant risk that MVBW may come and derail the discussion. Below, I am going to support claims with facts. Some of those examples only tangentially relate to the Holocaust in Poland topic, but I have to introduce it to give a full picture. |
False accusation of sockpuppetry
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving My very best wishes.
|
---|
In 04:46, 8 December 2019 MVBW accused me of being Icewhiz's sockpuppet. I addressed to an admin to resolve this situation. During this discussion, the admin explained to MVBW that he had to provide evidences in support of his accusation. MVBW edits his initial SPI post. Note, there is no mention of my sockpuppetry anymore, so it becomes totally unclear why did I write to Bbb23: I am presented as an idiot, it looks like I've complained on an accusation that never was. However, in the very same post, MVBW is now alleging that I am coordinating my activity with another user (or that user is coordinating their activity with me). What is a reason for throwing that dirt at me? The answer can be found in the story that happened in 2009. |
EEML archive
Not summarised for now, could potentially fit in with future evidence but EEML content is very far in the past. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I didn't present any evidenced against the EEML members in 2009, and I still believe that my decision was correct. Later I decided to read the EEML archive, where, as I was told, they were discussing me. Here, I am not going to name any other EEML members (actually, their behaviour was honest: their tone about me during on-Wiki and off-Wiki communication was essentially the same. The only exception was MVBW (Biophys)). I am not discussing the content of their emails, I am providing just the time and date (they can be independently verified by anyone).
I believe I need no further evidences for stopping any interaction with this user. |
Gas van
Not summarised for now. While the content in question is related to the scope of the case, the context is through a different topic entirely. Might fit in with future evidence, though. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This story is only tangentially related to the topic, but that is important. The "Soviet gas van" story, which was being actively pushed by some users in English Wikipedia distracts reader's attention from real Nazi crimes during the Holocaust in Poland by focusing too much on similar crimes committed by NKVD, which were poorly documented and their scale was unknown. Like Double genocide theory this topic should be considered the Holocaust obfuscation, and, therefore, it should be included. That was the only case when MVBW was able to really harm me. During the ANI about a totally unrelated topic, MVBW made this post. That short post contained four false claims.
All this lie looked so obvious to me that I decided not to defend myself, which, as I retrospectively realized was a mistake. To my big surprise, the community easily accepted this lie, and no one tried to check MVBW’s “facts”. As a result, I became redundantly angry during the rest of that discussion, which finally led to my topic ban. |
Evidence presented by Buffs
While I am not particularly comfortable posting this information on the Poland ARBCOM case publicly given the vitriolic nature of the posting. I feel that these details should be pointed out:
VM
Summarised at /Summary#Previous sanctions of Volunteer Marek
|
---|
|
GCB
Both/others
- Off wiki comments by multiple users demonstrating clear battleground mentality and wanting to "get back" (paraphrased) at others for perceived wrongs. Such interactions are not confined to VM and GCB.
GCB and VM have a battleground mentality
Not summarised. Primarily analysis/opinion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
VM and GCB have engaged in a battleground mentality both in the past and in the present. They both continue to exhibit it. In the above examples, I think it's extremely important to note that opposition to VM/GCB/et al is not synonymous with support for Icewhiz or this essay/paper. Any framing of such a discussion in that manner of equating such opposition is a red herring/ad hominem and is inherently against the principles of WP. Not only should it be discounted, but it should be WP:BOOMERANGed back on the person making the charge. I don't doubt that extremists are pushing an agenda here on all sides. I also don't doubt that VM/GCB mean well in their own heart. But, at best, they have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot control their behavior/reactions to the collegial manner required on WP. At worst, they appear to have engaged in advocacy via a battleground mentality. Neither is acceptable on WP and should be addressed accordingly Any editors who demonstrate such behavior, especially over such an extended period of time should be restricted, banned, or blocked. Why this hasn't been handled by an Admin via WP:ARBEE is beyond me. Perhaps encouragement to address such issues by ArbCom would help the matter. (if such conclusions are not permitted, please feel free to strike/delete). |
Evidence presented by Jehochman
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Volunteer Marek accuses perceived adversaries of colluding with Icewhiz and foments a battlegroundI had intended not to present evidence against anyone, but I will make an exception for the editor who has taken shots at my reputation behind my back, and without notifying me. As I said before, and as I will say again, I did not collude with Icewhiz in my prior case request. When I filed the 2021/22 request for arbitration, I had no memory of Icewhiz. He contacted me, and in my usual way, I optimistically (and incorrectly) assumed good faith. When I learned why I shouldn't, I cut off contact with him. Volunteer Marek has been talking smack about me on Wikipediocracy:
These posts should be considered in formulating findings and remedies. This is needless battleground behavior by VM. I left him alone, but he was unable to control himself. |
Evidence presented by Wugapodes
Committee statement on private request received in 2022
In 2022, the Arbitration Committee received a private request for action against an editor for harassment in this topic area. The Arbitration Committee declined to consider the matter privately and advised the requester to file a request publicly. Subsequently a submission was made to T&S alleging harassment, which was deferred to ArbCom per policy for handling under their existing ArbCom procedures. |
Prior disputes between Wikipedians and Grabowski
Grabowski and Klein (2023) is not the first publication in which Jan Grabowski has taken issue with Wikipedians or Wikipedia content, and this arbitration case is not the first time editors have taken issue with Grabowski. The following is a rough timeline of these conflicts and their on-wiki correlates.
- External publications
- Grabowski (2020) is an opinion piece in Gazeta Wyborcza where Grabowski alleges that Wikipedia editors—naming Piotrus, Volunteer Marek, Poeticbent, and Nihil Novi specifically—are pushing a particular point of view. Grabowski goes beyond merely naming editors, saying "These 'editors' do not need to have any professional qualifications in the field in which they work. The more entries they edit, the more changes they make, the stronger their position in the Wikipedia community.[...]But the 'editors' of Wikipedia know better and - to support the thesis about hundreds of thousands of Poles saving Jews - refer us to page 13 of Lukas's 1989 book "Out of the Inferno: Poles Remember the Holocaust"). It is a collection of several dozen reminiscent statements with an introduction by Lukas."Quotes machine translated from Polish
- Two weeks later the response Konieczny (2020) is published in the same magazine denying the accusation that editors are pushing a particular point of view stating from the outset: "There is no conspiracy of Polish nationalists to falsify history on Wikipedia". Konieczny states "The problem arises when reliable sources are hard to come by, give conflicting information, or when it is not easy for volunteers to distinguish between good and bad sources.[...]The reluctant approach of Prof. Grabowski for this project is emblematic when it comes to a basic problem: Wikipedia could be much better if experts were more actively involved in this project, instead of treating it as some kind of attack on their position in society, waiting for the era of paper encyclopedias to return, which the common man could only read, but God forbid anything more."Quotes machine translated from Polish
- Grabowski & Klein (2023) reiterates issues raised in Grabowski (2020) in a peer-reviewed journal and expands on the earlier claims based on interviews with Wikipedians.
- Edits to the Jan Grabowski biography
- In 2019 various disputes arose regarding how to cover public criticism of and support for Grabowski (edit history).
- On 1 March 2020, around the time Grabowski (2020) was published, Piotrus starts a talk page thread regarding "recent social media commentary (hard to link facebook comments)" where Grabowski "called his biography here 'terrible' and 'scandalous'".
- Following Grabowski (2020) and Konieczny (2020), editors criticized by Grabowski continued to edit his biography:
- 8 April 2020: Piotrus and Nihil Novi add two entries to Grabowski's "Selected works" section.
- 26 April 2020: Nihil Novi changes the capitalization of "chemistry"
- 8 February 2021: Volunteer Marek copyedits prose regarding criticism of Grabowski
- 22 February 2021: Nihil Novi copyedits prose regarding a lawsuit against Grabowski
- 21 March 2021: Volunteer Marek copyedits prose and removes a sentence regarding responses to a verdict against Grabowski
- 7 July 2021: Nihil Novi moves an image to the other side of the page
- 31 July 2021: Nihil Novi copyedits prose regarding criticism of Grabowski's work and related verdict
- 06:54, 1 August 2021: Volunteer Marek copyedits prose and removes a sentence regarding responses to a verdict against Grabowski
- 21:40, 1 August 2021: Volunteer Marek removes a sentence regarding responses to a verdict against Grabowski
- 7 August 2021: Volunteer Marek removes a sentence regarding responses to a verdict against Grabowski
- 12 August 2021: Piotrus removed content related to the reception of one of Grabowski's works
- On 8 August 2021 Hemiauchenia made an edit referencing WP:BLPCOI and Grabowski (2020).
- Save for the 12 August 2021 edit above, no edits to Jan Grabowski have been made by editors criticized by him in the 2020 opinion piece.
- On 30 December 2021, Levivich submits a statement in the Warsaw concentration camp case request linking to Grabowski (2020) and Konieczny (2020) as well as pointing to the Jan Grabowski edit history in order to allege "WP:BLP/WP:COI-violating tag-team edit warring, just like what was pointed out in" a contemporaneous COI noticeboard discussion. (Not technically an edit to the biography, but included for transparency on how this came to my attention)
- References
- Grabowski, Jan (28 February 2020). "Wrzuć brednię na Wikipedię. Polscy nacjonaliści wciskają kit zagranicznym czytelnikom" [Put your bullshit on Wikipedia. Polish nationalists are screwing foreign readers.]. Ale Historia. Gazeta Wyborcza. Retrieved 8 April 2023.
- Konieczny, Piotr (12 March 2020). "Mamy taką Wikipedię, na jaką zasłużyliśmy. Eksperci nie chcą tworzyć dobra publicznego" [We got the Wikipedia we deserve. Experts do not want to create a public good.]. Ale Historia. Gazeta Wyborcza. Retrieved 8 April 2023.
- Grabowski, Jan; Klein, Shira (2023). "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". The Journal of Holocaust Research. doi:10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939.
Evidence presented by ScottishFinnishRadish
IBan between Levivich and Volunteer Marek
I placed the IBan between the two of them due to both of their behavior in discussions with one another. In retrospect I should have stepped in with a lighter touch during their discussion on Levivich's talk page, but I didn't and it escalated to their back and forth at the signpost talk page where Levivich made a severe PA. Looking at the situation, I wasn't going to just block or otherwise sanction Levivich as their behavior was the result of a series of adversarial back and forths, where Volunteer Marek was also being uncivil. I didn't think a warning was sufficient in this case, as Volunteer Marek's behavior seems to have been unchanged after being warned, and as the behavior of both editors was at issue an uneven sanction wouldn't be a fair move. Since the disruption was centered around a topic that was currently before arbcom I enacted the IBan so that they could hash things out in the correct venue, rather than elsewhere on en.wiki where there would be no benefit to their discussions. Sorry this is short, but I am very busy IRL and sick as a dog. I just wanted to get this in before the deadline, as it was brought up.
Evidence presented by HaeB
Volunteer Marek's rebuttal misrepresents Grabowski and Klein's paper
- Here, VM accuses G&K of a "lie" about his edits in the Naliboki massacre article, omitting the fact that they back up their assertion with a diff link (footnote 92). See more details here.
This is not only suitable to mislead the community about the general validity of the paper, but also (regarding the allegation of a "lie", i.e. a deliberate untruth) a WP:ASPERSION and WP:BLP problem.
Volunteer Marek engages in incivil attacks and in casting aspersions
E.g. "you've completely lost the plot" [584], "a bad junior high school essay" [585], "gushing cringy" and Icewhiz comparisons (a WMF-permabanned editor) [586].
Piotrus' rebuttal misrepresents Grabowski and Klein's paper
- In section 4.2 ("On Lukas' [book] The Forgotten Holocaust", Piotrus acccuses Grabowski and Klein of a
False claim about "sea of praise") [...] The authors write that: “By portraying Engel’s opinion as a lone dissenter in a sea of praise, Piotrus massaged the Wikipedia article to show Lukas in a positive light.”, but the book article entry I indeed wrote (May 2020 version linked) included other critical or mixed reviews as well
. - Re section 20 ("On Chart 3"): See my more detailed notes here (in particular Piotrus claiming that G&K
seem to have acknowledged [an] error
whereas they had done nothing of the sort), and here (in particular points 2) and 3) - claims that contradict the authors' own methodology description and selective quoting, both creating the appearance of G&K having made serious factual errors).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{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.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.