Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop

Consensus

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of respectful discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Consensus develops from participation and agreement of the parties involved in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Combination of: WP:RFAR/Dalmatia#Consensus, WP:ARBMAC2#Consensus, and WP:EEML#Consensus. I'll make more if there is positive feedback for this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process completely failed in this case, so it's hardly worth advertising. François Robere (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Battleground conduct

2) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is one team of editors, all working toward the same purpose. Editors should not treat editors with whom they disagree as belonging to another "side" or an opposing group. Bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied word-for-word from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop#Battleground conduct. Credit to Levivich who adapted it from Gun control#Battleground conduct. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Graverobbing

3) Retired editors should generally be given deference and peace of mind. Gravedancing is when a user essentially disrespects an editor who has chosen to retire; be it through insults onto that user's character, going through their contribution history to revert their contributions, casting aspersions against that user, or being otherwise uncivil or harassing that editor.

The repeated (and at times unfounded) attempts abuse an unrelated dispute as a platform to attack a retired user is a severe form of gravedancing known as graverobbing. Such abuse of arbitration processes are not to be tolerated by the committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is the principle of which I will use to justify further statements. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Nah, I meant that. I didn't feel gravedancing entirely fit how far past civility restrictions we've went. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: I think you mean gravedancing, graverobbing is something else entirely. --Rschen7754 22:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Rschen, also otherwise I'd ask for a user-essay on Wikipedia:Graverobbing. But logic-wise, I am pretty sure we are talking about dancing, not robbing. The claim that "s a severe form of gravedancing known as graverobbing" is not backed up by the linked essay, and I don't think see this connection in normal terms (see Wikipedia main entries on grave robbing and wiktionary:grave dancing). On another note, I do think this is a relevant principle; I am just commenting on the likely error in the choice of metaphors.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sneaking this one in here. Lifted from German war effort. It almost doesn't need to be said, but it also very much needs to be said.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

duh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors in the topic area

1) Editors involved in the topic area of Polish-Jewish relations have been mostly editing in good faith. Some of the editing however has been less than optimal, which resulted in longstanding content disputes over the principles of neutral point of view and the interpretation of reliable sources. This has involved some suboptimal user conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Essentially copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#Editors in the topic area. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No objections, but "suboptimal" is probably an understatement. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz engaged in graverobbing

2) Poeticbent (talk · contribs) is a yearlong retired user added as a party to this case by Icewhiz. Icewhiz has repeatedly attempted to make this arbitration case into a trial on Poeticbent's conduct after making persistent claims against them (). Also see the evidence submitted by starship.paint.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

this diff is vs. a blocked sock. "after making persistent claims against them" is incorrect - diffs are following case request naming Poeticbent. "Graverobbing" is a novel concept here, not grounded in policy. As for WP:HOAXes in mainspace - I backed this up with evidence (sufficient examples, given diff and evidence length limits). The Wikipedia community should be concerned with hoaxes on the Holocaust history in mainspace - we should not be hosting such content.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Also per Wikipedia:Gravedancing: "Checking the edits of a user who was blocked for, or who was later discovered to have been engaged in, disruptive editing related to content in article space, and undoing/deleting those that fail to meet Wikipedia policy." is not gravedancing. Furthermore, I have not, in fact, gone through Poeticbent's edits (I did review the blocked socks from 2011, but not edits made from the Poeticbent account) - though it would've been warranted given the content issues discovered.Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Finding of fact as it relates to Poeticbent. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: see my above reply on why I chose that term. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not graverobbing, but gravedancing. But I agree. Actually, this is probably the worst case of gravedancing I have seen in Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh, looking forward to someone creating a proper essay on WP:GRAVEROBBING. I'd think that the usage of such term should be supported by a user essay at least. Evidence-wise, do note that most of the AfDs I list have been created by Poeticbent. Is it a coincidence that majority of Polish-related AfDs started by Icewhiz are on articles created by Poeticbent? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek previously sanctioned

3) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) is a longstanding established editor who has previously been a party to an Arbitration case related to Eastern Europe (See evidence submitted by MJL). Though it was later rescinded, Volunteer Marek was topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Finding of fact related to my evidence. This should probably be noted somewhere. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a bit of background tbh. I probably should've written out that both were sanctioned for battleground editing, but honestly I got tired after a while. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That was too long ago to be relevant. Arbs will probably notice that both VM and Icewhiz were topic-banned recently in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Didn't Icewhiz got topic banned at the same time? Also, this finding should mention a year this happened. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek engaged in personal attacks

4) Volunteer Marek has repeatedly made personal attacks against Icewhiz as it relates to this dispute ().

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is no sidestepping the fact VM has said some pretty downright awful things both to and about Icewhiz. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I am afraid this is something Arbs might think if they do not look carefully at the Evidence. No, I do not think it would be a correct finding. In part, the comments by VM have been provoked. In part I think his comments were true. See my comments in this section. This should be a finding about both contributors or something different. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • VM is not a child, and he's done plenty of "provoking" himself. François Robere (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz has falsely accused me of some horrible things, without evidence. I have not done anything even remotely comparable. Most of these comments are a natural reaction by someone who finds himself smeared in this way. It's precisely because I'm not a child that I recognize the seriousness and the awfulness of such charges, and why I take them so seriously. Whatever my reaction, there is absolutely no excuse for Icewhiz's provocations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Provocation is no excuse for personal attacks: Two wrongs do not make a right. That there may be "no excuse for Icewhiz's provocations" does not excuse personal attacks such as "you fucking sleazeball" in response. Paul August ☎ 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

In all honestly, I have argued for years that WP:CIV/WP:NPA should be given more weight, an argument that sadly doesn't generally seem to be heeded by the community (why did WP:PAIN died, eh?). Anyway, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't say this is a correct FoF too. If you can't say something nice, or neutral, shut the f up, to use a language that is related to this finding :> Loosing one's temper does nothing outside providing the other 'side' with ammunition that will eventually be used in findings like this :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Community encouraged (sourcing)

1) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC regarding the best practices for sourcing within the Antisemitism in Poland topic area. In particular, it is suggested interested editors within the community work to develop an explanatory supplement to the provisions of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for Jewish-Polish historiography.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I've launched a number of RfCs on sourcing, I feel the community has been exhausted so to speak. Therefore - I have been fairly judicious in opening RfCs. RSN for the topic area is also fairly bad - most discussions (particularly on a non-English source) end up with very little outside input - with mainly involved editors commenting (leading to the same deadlock on the article talk pages). It seems everybody is willing to throw a comment at Fox News (or various American media outlets) - but generally there's little response at RSN for many other topics. My personal feeling here is that the underlying problem is lack of outside involvement on the one hand, coupled with a "voting bloc" that's willing to !vote on sources in a manner that is not in accordance with WP:V and WP:RS. Known Holocaust distorters or self-published sources really shouldn't be up for discussion at all - yet they are, and receive non-negligible support in a manner that's not commensurate to Wikipedia policy on sourcing. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibly relevant - WP:HISTRS (essay). Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

In regards to comment below: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Pitorus dubious sourcing. Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"Known Holocaust distorters or self-published sources really shouldn't be up for discussion at all - yet they are" - by WHOM? Be specific Icewhiz. When you make a claim like that back it up. Say WHO, WHERE and HOW is "discussing" these sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Worked from Gamaliel and others as well as Macedonia 2. This is an alternative to two of the proposed principles by Icewhiz below. Kindest regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking about something like this. We should have a page where we list various authors/publishers that have been seen as controversial, list the RSN/FRINGEN/etc. discussion in the past, and try to reach a consensus on whether or with what qualifications such sources can be used. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally ArbCom should avoid encouraging RfCs, because anytime a case comes to ArbCom, an RfC at the conclusion will either end in no consensus or a super vote close that doesn’t really reflect the discussion but someone tried to make work so the exercise wouldn’t be done for nothing. Consensus on Wikipedia is first and foremost developed through practice, not RfCs. In areas like this, the committee dealing with the behaviour will ideally make the practice bit easier so a workable solution can be found. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think this is a unique subject area. Perhaps we need something like WP:MEDRS in the whole area of politics and history, but this should be decided by community. However, I would expect such RfC to fail because it contradict the letter (if not the spirit) of WP:RS. Probably the best approach is to simply improve our core WP:RS policy if there are any general problems there. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes and TonyBallioni: I'm rather surprised you both say the RFC would fail. My experience with writing WP:MOSMAC3 was nothing but a positive one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That's because it was a naming guidance (I agree: it is good to have it). But the remedies depend on the "findings of fact". I agree that the sourcing was an issue here, but not in the way Icewhiz is trying to present it. I think the actual issue was classic POV-pushing when someone (Icewhiz) dismisses sources he does not like because they are "Polish"/"journalistic"/written by historian X (but he criticized!)/whatever. This is covered by WP:NPOV, not WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Icewhiz: Well, the works that distort the holocaust may still be able to be used in accordance with WP:SELFSOURCE but not much else. I'm not saying you're completely right in the content part of this dispute, but a site-wide RFC would make things in the dispute much clearer in that regard. This is assuming it's worded right, but that can only happen if all the sides here come together in favor of having one with arbcom backing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions applicable

2) The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Eastern Europe for "[p]ages which relate to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly interpreted" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions also apply to any article regarding the country of Poland, Polish historical figures, and Polish culture. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Eastern Europe case, not this one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I personally don't like the idea of going the discretionary sanctions route. However, if we do go down that route, I think it might be a good idea to restate that Polish topics still fall under WP:ARBEE. This is effectively the same thing passed under Manning naming dispute but instead applied to Motion: Eastern Europe and Balkans scope. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Care not to limit to geography too much: Belarus and the Ukraine were often mentioned alongside Poland, as were Germany, Russia, and the Czech Republic (or any of their respective ethnicities). François Robere (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Poland is the Westernmost country considered to be in Eastern Europe (besides the Czech Republic). This is the only reason I am proposing this specific clarification of Eastern Europe. The issues surrounding Polish articles also dwarfs that of many others by far, and so it would feel weird to specify the Czech Republic alongside Poland when the disruption has not been exactly equal. As for Germany, that is not a country in Eastern Europe, and it isn't the intent of this proposal to modify the scope of the preexisting sanction regime. The rest are farther east than Poland, so it would be pretty much pointless to specify them here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions also apply to..." François Robere (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done @François Robere: Can I ask you ping me in the future? It's generally preferred for me, and I don't mind whatsoever getting a ton of pings (many pings > no pings). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions authorized

3) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages about Antisemitism or The Holocaust, both broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@TonyBallioni: Not to sound like a brat, but wouldn't this be the most effective method of applying WP:AC/DS here? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m pretty confident the Holocaust falls under a broad construction of Antisemitism. That, and I haven’t seen issues with people arguing over the extermination of the Roma or the death of Maximilian Kolbe. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Articles which were disrupted do cover topics like Soviet partisans of the Public execution in Dębica, which I don't think fall under either of those two topics... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Too narrow. See Piotrus's comment above. François Robere (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere and Piotrus: This remedy works in conjunction with my second proposed remedy which seeks to clarify Eastern Europe as to include Poland. See my comment above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: A funny question, but... can you explain what Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions actually do? I mean, I read that page, and... for the last 10 years EE topics which I edit regularly have been under EE, right? Well, I cannot tell the difference they've made, outside an occasional mention at AE - and even there I can't think of who was actually sanctioned because of DS. So, from my non-admin perspective, the impact of DS has been negligible if any. Hence I don't see what passing a new DS might do, particularly considering that almost all of the stuff we discuss here, broadly defined, is already under DS (since all of EE is under them, right?). So, no offense, all of this DS talk seems to me totally pointless, a rule equivalent of fig leaf that sure, sounds nice, but as no effect. I don't object to DS in general, I just don't see that having them or not does anything outside of making some admins (arbitrators) seem like they are doing something, that something being passing pointless rules that don't change anything with regards to how regular grunts, i.e. content editors, go about their daily business of actually creating content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Before this edit, you would not have been able to be taken to WP:AE. The ability to use AE as a process for editors not a party to WP:ARBEURO is one feature of WP:aC/DS. Alternatively, admins have the option of applying sanctions.page to relevant pages that fall within the DS regime's scope. Two good examples would be Donald Trump and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Try to edit either article, and you'll see page restrictions have been applied. Those page restrictions are appealable only to arbcom and not considered normal admin actions. Hope that helps! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This subject area is already covered by EE sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I fail to see how a second set of DS would change anything. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek (interaction ban)

4) Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have done nothing warranting such a sanction. VM has been hounding me and hurling insults, there is no merit for anything other than a 1-way IBAN.Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"Two to tango" - being hounded doesn't require two - but one. VM reverting back in content failing verification doesn't require two. I have in fact walked away from several articles VM followed me to, and have been civil to VM throughout. This suggestion demonstrates everything that is wrong with the current treatment of long term harrassment on Wikipedia. I asked VM repeatedly to stop - with a pretty please. I did not run to AE on the first insult. Nor on the 10th. I went to AE (and subsequently ARBCOM) after several months of this.Icewhiz (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz has made odious false allegations against me. He most definitely should be subject to a one way IBAN. His "evidence" that I "hounded" (sic) him is just the fact that I edited ... some same articles in the topic area, which considering I've been editing this area or 15 years is hardly surprising. A two way ban btw, would probably cause more headaches than its worth - we've both edited a lot of same articles and subjects so parceling out who gets to edit what would be a mess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"have been civil to VM throughout" User:Icewhiz, making false horrible accusations without evidence against other users is not "civil". Making false horrible accusations without evidence against other users and having to deal with the response does not make you a victim. It just makes you the perpetrator who somebody stood up to, finally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is pretty much required to restore this project from disruption. I have never met two so fundamentally incompatible editors in all my time here (which isn't saying much). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policy argument behind "we're going to limit you for no good reason except we can't control the other guy" is. "Incompatibility"? We've seen far worse adversaries share a table in the "real world", it's only a question of will. François Robere (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. Icewhiz could have done any number of things differently and avoid this scenario. Going over them would be too time consuming (just like this fight between the two has been). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, interaction bans do not work for contributors who edit in the same subject area. Arbs will likely topic ban one of the contributors or the both. However, I am pretty much sure that the problems will continue if Icewhiz will remain editing in this subject area (Jewish Polish history) because his conflict is/was with several contributors. On the other hand, leaving VM to edit will not produce any significant problems. So, speaking in purely practical terms (to minimize disruption and improve content), I would say: topic ban Icewhiz. Yes, he certainly created a significant WP:BATTLE, which needs to be resoled to minimize disruption. But I can be wrong, and the Arbs may decide this very differently. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There is evidence that Volunteer Marek hounded Icewhiz, not the other way around. There is evidence that Volunteer Marek also made WP:PA's against Icewhiz, not the other way around. I cannot comment on content at this time, but in terms of behaviour used towards reaching consensus, I see Icewhiz always adhering to policy, welcoming civil and substantiated debates on TPs and noticeboards.

On the other hand, and although I'm not generally familiar with Volunteer Marek's edits, I see VMs behaviour in dealing with these conflicts problematic. I think that if VM wasn't a established editor, he would have been sanctioned just for their WP:PA and WP:HOUNDING a long time ago. I think policy should apply to everyone, established and non-established editors. Since content is rather too complex for inspection, on behaviour alone, VM should be topic banned. Icewhiz, on the other hand, has not done anything that merits a TB or IB. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No, looking at this, one could say that Icewhiz hounded VM, but the "hounding" assume following another contributor specifically with the purpose of harassment. People looking at each other edits to improve content is not wikihounding. Speaking about the unfounded accusations, please see my evidence. Not enough? See this and this. And no, this is not about "established" editors (like VM) versus "new" editors or SPAs. This is about someone contributing positively a lot to the project during many years, while editing in many very difficult subject areas. I mean VM. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

" There is evidence that Volunteer Marek hounded Icewhiz, not the other way around" No, there isn't.

"There is evidence that Volunteer Marek also made WP:PA's against Icewhiz, not the other way around." No, there is evidence that Icewhiz made awful false accusations that any normal person would have a strong reaction to. There is evidence Icewhiz was trying to be purposefully provocatie and disruptive. Heck, he was doing it literally, in real time, on this very page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think this is workable given how deeply involved the two of them are in this topic area - especially considering that a two-way interaction ban requires at least some cooperation from the people involved, and both of them think it should just be a one-way interaction ban on the other. --Aquillion (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally, their discussions with one another don't achieve much outside generating heat, so this is something that makes some sense. I'd like to hear a clarification on whether this applies to content editing (article namespace), in particular whether ibaned editors would be able to revert one another and if so what can they write in edit summaries? Also, regarding talk, would one be able to vote in an RfC/RM/AfD or such starting by another? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz interaction ban with Poeticbent

5) Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Poeticbent (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See my comment to FoF proposed. I have done nothing vs. Poeticbent to warrant this, and punishing users who discover long standing hoaxes on Holocaust history in Wikipedia mainspace is an odd way to promote Wikipedia's content quality.Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Essentially copied from Tea Party movement. I've learned I am not as good at writing finding of facts as I am remedies. However, I do have diffs: (All taken from the evidence page). I also recommend seeing the evidence submitted by starship.paint, this proposed finding of fact, and the general discussion. I almost don't want this subject to the usual exceptions, but hopefully it'll be clear in of itself. As I stated here, this is a nightmare/warped form of WP:Gravedancing (ie. Grave robbing). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, this isn't about promoting Wikipedia's content quality. It's the fact that Poeticbent is long since retired, but you keep bringing him up as if he's still around doing the things you say he's doing. Even if I were to concede that all you say is true, then I still don't think you are the right editor to be going through Poeticbent's contributions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not a bad preventive measure (if you ask me), but it will hardly be enacted. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems fair. If there is some hideous pattern of wrongdoing by Poeticbent that Icewhiz uncovers and documents in the future, he can email it to an admin or committee member. Otherwise, yes, it would be good to see less accusations against people who can't defend themselves. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz admonished

6) For their battleground behavior over the course of this case, Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of battleground behavior during arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unsupported by diffs or evidence. Certainly an odd manner to encourage harrassment victims (hounding, persistent personal attacks) to present their case. This case really has demonstrated just how broken Wikipedia's treatment of long term harrassment is - you get dragged through a month+ long process in which you get a whole additional pile of personal attacks get hurled your way.Icewhiz (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"Unsupported by diffs or evidence." - no. Just for starters: , as well as the disgusting false allegations in the Request for this case. The attempts for Icewhiz to play victim here when he's the one who's repeatedly attacked others, and has made a LOT of false allegations against them really takes the cake.

Hey Icewhiz. YOU are the one who made a request for this case. And your opening "salvo" was a bogus and disgusting accusation made against me (and perhaps others). The Committee can look through all the Evidence you posted. All your comments on Workshop. There isn't a single diff or link you managed to provide (and this after combing through my edits going back years and years) to support your initial charge of "Holocaust distortion" (sic) or anti-semitism. And now you have the freakin' nerve to show up here and complain that YOU are the one that's been harassed??? Listen buddy, you edit Wikipedia anonymously, and run around on it making false charges against them and lie about them and then you act all indignant that people actually try to defend themselves against your nonsense. If there was any doubt before that you were acting in bad faith, you've just cleared that up.

You STILL even haven't bothered to retract or apologize.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Perhaps you're right. But the thing is... you're not the one being accused of these things. Put yourself in my shoes. How would you react? With stuff like this, because the accusation is so horrible, you really have to take a stand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Standard admonishment would be helpful, I feel. Still working on the remedies that relate to VM. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Can you give an example of that? François Robere (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: [Thank you for the ping] This is a perfectly apt question. I'd look no further that this proposal and the evidence submitted by My very best wishes. That is on top of the Graverobbing concerns I have already outlined above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: My pleasure I don't follow. Isn't bias something that's worth pointing out? As for MVBW's claim - all but one of these editors have been shown to engage in PA, source misrepresentation, or both (with evidence to that effect by third parties, including myself), so why not bring them into the case? ARBCOM cases are supposed to be comprehensive. François Robere (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Arbcom has pretty much never made a decision to that effect. It's pretty much asking arbcom to wade directly into a content dispute. That really isn't what we're here for.
If it were up to me, there would be a lot more parties to this case. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

So the proof of BATTLEGROUND is a) him pointing out there's bias in the area (which there is ); and b) him naming several "co-conspirators" in an early revision of his evidence (that he didn't file). Okay. François Robere (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: comments like this are part of my concern here. Staying silent would have been more apt than adding more fuel to the fire. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You are speaking to someone who keeps a Wall of Shame (of which my participation on here is likely to be included). I'd probably write a few counterarguments in my own section, step away from the computer, and avoid letting this stuff get to me. It is true I have never have faced the implication of being anti-semitic, but I have been told of my own WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE concerns. It's not fun, but I'm still around. As has been explained to you I'm sure, the arbs will read this all and come to a decision. Simply saying, "I disagree. You have not provided a diff to that effect, Icewhiz." would have been gone farther than saying and doing what you have been doing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek admonished

6) For repeated personal attacks against Icewhiz, Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of uncivil during both content and conduct disputes will likely result in sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The only "personal attacks" I've made were in response to Icewhiz's vile and false accusations regarding anti-semitism and "Holocaust distortion". That's the crucial context here since I think that any normal decent person would react the same way. The much bigger problem is Icewhiz making these accusations and insinuations in the first place. However, I do recognize that I should've first cooled off and only then responded in equally strong but less personal terms.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: My bad. Also, I wasn't aware that Bradv removed himself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Considering what has been said, this is the bare minimum remedy for VM. Either user may or may not deserve greater sanctions, but both deserve at least an admonishment for their conduct here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"Here" isn't the core problem - "everything that lead here" is. Sanctioning either solely for what took place during the case misses the target by a mile. François Robere (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's an inclusive "here" meaning both "this case" and "the events that lead up to this case." –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You gotta put stuff in your section. I did this one time because of our noticeable lack of clerks since Bradv removed themselves. :/ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: [Thank you for the ping] Yeah, but to address your main concern: I know you aren't particularly happy with being admonished, but it's the bare minimum I feel is appropriate for this dispute. To some, this may be merely a slap on the wrist. If you ever going to move past this, then you need to acknowledge your own part in making things between you and Icewhiz worse off. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of content

1) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work toward a resolution of the concern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not the best of prose, but the most important statement of principle this committee can make. François Robere (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur. I particularly like the stress on working together in a civil fashion. A link to WP:AGF here may be helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

2) Statements in articles should be supported by citation to reliable sources and may not constitute original research. Appropriate sourcing is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial or their accuracy is disputed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Accuracy of sourcing

3) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rephrase 2nd sentence: "by quoting or citing a source, an editor assumes responsibility to the veracity of that quote or citation; that is, that it faithfully represents the content, context and - insofar as can be inferred from the text - intent of the source." François Robere (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That sounds a little weird. I'd however suggest something alone the lines of 'editors are strongly encourage to provide quotes' for any challenged content. Through like a bunch of other stuff discussed here, all of this is already in existing policies and I am not sure what good a bunch of reminders would do... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but admins rarely enforce it, as they (wrongly) view these issues as related to "content" and don't even discuss them. François Robere (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Dubious sources

4) Editors should exercise caution and avoid the introduction of questionable sources promoting views considered to be extremist by reliable sources. Editors should avoid advocacy of use of such sources in article talk pages or noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Given Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Pitorus dubious sourcing, adapted from WP:QS.Icewhiz (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

What's more alarming that the actual use of self-published material by a Holocaust distorter or a religious foundation known for propagating antisemitism and conspiracy theories - is that some editors (e.g. below) are actually justifying use of such sources for "uncontroversial" content after they had been called out for this use. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We could start by having you practice what you preach. Here you use a trashy source (wpolityce) to attack a BLP. Here you try to use a guy who said that "Poles lack common-sense" and who, as editor of American Conservative published the white supremacist Steve Sailer. You do this to attack a BLP. Here you use a trashy right wing source (which you misrepresent) and, worse, an anti-semitic source, which you do however, represent accurately (that's not a good thing). You do this to attack a BLP. Here you use another low quality right wing source. You do this to attack a BLP. Here you try to use a guy who's an expert on ... catfish fishing, to source historical facts. I haven't gotten yet to the part where you try to use a celebrity gossip columnist to cite historical facts and attack people. Will dig that one out shortly.

It's a great principle. Why not try following it Icewhiz? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do not think anyone advocated using Questionable_sources. What does appear in these discussions are Biased_or_opinionated_sources and occasionally Self-published_sources. The former can be used. The latter have a limited usage as outlined in the policy, for example, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". However, if someone qualify as an expert can be disputable and may be decided by WP:Consensus. It also matters if a self-published work was cited and regarded as an appropriate source of information by other, better sources, such as published (not self-published) books. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz. Self-published - see above. As about a religious foundation, that falls under Biased_or_opinionated_sources. You can not blacklist biased sources just because they contradict your POV. If they can be viewed as "extremist sources" (I have no idea), this is an argument that the content is "undue" on the page, but it can be reliably published. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There's "opinion" and there's "bias". "Opinion" is acceptable; "bias" is questionable. François Robere (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this as far as general confirmation of Wikipediia policies, of course, but since Icewhiz mentions his 'evidence' on sources I use here (see my rebuttal), it should be noted that Icewhiz agenda here is clear - he wants an ArbCom ruling to use to win editing discussions he cannot get consensus for in a normal way. WP:QS/WP:QUESTIONABLE are defined as "extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion". The sources Icewhiz and some other editors in this topic area disagree on reliability of occasionally do not, IMHO, fit into this category. For example, one source me and Icewhiz tend to disagree on is the website by Anna Poray described as "Personal Web site that provides information non-Jewish Polish citizens who have been recognized as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem for their efforts to save Jews during the Holocaust." It does not contain any controversial, redflag content but is indeed a SPS. Most of the time information on that website can be verified with other, more reliable sources, and it has never been shown to contain an error or a contradiction. It has been cited by some scholars etc. ex Rochelle G. Saidel in her book , or by or Google Scholar citations by Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (who is a scholar Icewhiz uses as a source himself, and whose biographical article he started), note more results are out there for her work cited without the URL. So Tokarska-Bakir, a RS that Icewhiz accepts, can cite Poray but we cannot? Now, I agree that in principle we should use a more reliable source and so instead of restoring Poray I use more reliable sources (see evidence). The issue on hand is, IMHO, whether such sources, SPS but occasionally used by other scholars, and used for mundane, non-controversial statements of fact (not opinions) should be removed on sight with content they are used to support (solution preferred by Icewhiz) or can they be left, possibly tagged with {{Unreliable source?}} or {{Self-published inline}} until someone verifies and replaces them with a more reliable citation (solution preferred by me, per WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." as such usage IMHO falls within the limited acceptable use of low quality sources on Wikipedia). Let me stress, again, that we are talking about usage of such sources for uncontroversial statements of fact, and I would fully support instant removal of it and content they support for anything that is a WP:REDFLAG or even remotely controversial. Bottom line, this is a sound principle but it won't change a thing, as it still requires editorial judgement about whether a source is acceptable or not, and this not something AE tends to take a stance in. And discussions on RSN, Fringe or such yield little consensus. Let me stress, however, that I am fine with replacing Poray and like with better sources, and tagging her with an inline unreliable or SPS templates is fine. The problem in this topic area is not, however, the rare usage of such sources, which are almost never used for controversial claims, but rather, the removal of uncontroversial, but poorly sourced content, which damages the quality of an article by removing information relevant to the reader. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The "normal way" sources do actually get thrown out - we don't need ARBCOM for that. The most recent example is that of Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, about whom we've had multiple discussions, that are now about to get resolved by an RfC. Other example's include the "German failure to establish a puppet state" and the "Jewish collaborationists persecuting Poles" sagas, both of which eventually resolved favorably. François Robere (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Assumption of unreliability, sourcing in sensitive topic areas

5) Editors should assume a source is unreliable, unless proven otherwise. In sensitive topic areas, particularly those in which conspiracy theories and hate discourse is prevalent, editors should devote extra care to maintaining high quality sourcing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Following WP:BURDEN/WP:ONUS, modified to WP:V/RS selection - in light of comments such as this which advocate use of questionable sources for "uncontroversial" content (in this particular case - anything but uncontroversial, however even if the content were uncontroversial - it would be an issue).Icewhiz (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

First, there is a serious misunderstanding here. There are sources that are not reliably published. And there are sources (frequently books) that are published by authors who promote conspiracy theories or qualify as WP:FRINGE. Those can be reliably published, but "undue" on pages. Secondly, this is not a good idea because Arbcom should not rule on content. Finally, you are probably talking about this specific example , which looks to me as a public database. If one can reasonably argue that the author is a recognized authority in the field, I think it could used. But if not, this is not an RS and should not be used. On the other hand, according to the page, it just took a list of people from Yad Vashem which would be a reliable source? If Yad Vashem has its own online database with such info, one should simply use it. That one? My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

As a general matter I think this is terrible. We already have too many wikipolice trying to control what info our readers are allowed to see. We don't need more. It could possibly be ok as a type of consensus finding in a particular high-conflict area like the one in this dispute. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm otherwise uninvolved, and I don't really think I even need to state this... but this is a terrible idea. It contradicts WP:AGF and would otherwise have arbcom regulate the content of sourcing and be unilaterally interpreting WP:V/WP:NOENG. If certain sources need to be blacklisted, it's for the community to decide. The most arbcom should be doing is encouraging a discussion there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia works well enough, even in most controversial areas, without assumption of guilt for the sources (or editors who use them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is this could be interpreted as a "general" rule that could dictate the course of discussions, rather than as a guideline for individual editors to follow (which is not unjustified given the low quality of sources used by some). Statement #4 is preferable - it's more general, and more easily accepted. François Robere (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Poeticbent hoax creation

1) Poeticbent created a number of anti-Jewish hoaxes which have persisted for several years in articles in the topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Volunteer Marek: False statement, misrepresenting source, in their evidence

2) During the case, and as part of their evidence statement, Volunteer Marek falsely stated that a source had been misrepresented and in doing so misrepresented the source himself. Contrary to Volunteer Marek's statement, the cited journal article in Holocaust Studies and Materials by Dr. Grzegorz Krzywiec supports the text in the article. Volunteer Marek also asserted a "WP:BLPVIO" towards a subject that died in 2004, 15 years ago.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

My very best wishes: false statements in evidence

3) During the case, and as part of their evidence statement, My very best wishes falsely claimed, that this journal article by J. Otto Pohl supports their viewpoint, while the journal article itself is on a different subject and doesn't mention the "Polish operation" or Poles. Present in closed evidence 24 June(bullet-5 (link #180) in section), despite MVBW being informed of the misrepresentation on 10 June. Furthermore, in diff they claimed that Icewhiz inserted "Harvest" (misnomer, usually: "Hearts of Gold") as a source, however in the diffs offered - , - the cited sources are a journal article by Grzegorz Krzywiec, and a review by Danusha Goska, covering "Hearts of Gold" and the controversy in a secondary manner and not "Hearts of Gold" itself. (evidence bullet-2 (links #162, #163))

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps I was not clear enough in Evidence because of word limitations. My first link ([179]) is about "Polish operations". The second link ([180]) is a publication about ethnicity-based persecutions the USSR in general. This is NOT a separate issue, but one of many ethnicity-based mass murders by the NKVD (as, for example, explained in the article by Ellman , footnote #37, discussed by Icewhiz); note that Poles are correctly included on our page. I never said the 2nd ref was about Polish operations. Here is (May 28-June 4) our initial discussion with Icewhiz (included as link in Evidence). I said "One can easily find academic sources that explicitly argue that ethnicity-based operations by NKVD in general were "genocide (for example, here), and that their Polish operations were genocide (for example, here). Note: these are scholarly academic sources." As about second issue (this edit by Icewhiz ), see discussion in previous section), I removed it from the Evidence just because discussing something with Icewhiz is so difficult. Well, I edited very little in this area and had just a few conversations with Icewhiz. The conversations per se were fine. But he created such a firework of accusations! Poor Poeticbent (he was such a nice guy) and Volunteer Marek. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• So nice. François Robere (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• That comment is indeed worth reading; thank you for bringing it up. Hope the Arbs will follow our discussion and check it out. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek engaged in harassment of Icewhiz

4) Volunteer Marek harassed Icewhiz, hounded his editing despite multiple requests to stop and engaged in a pattern of personal attacks and incivility towards Icewhiz.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Volunteer Marek failed to follow the verifiability policy

5) Volunteer Marek failed to follow the verifiability policy. Despite content being clearly challenged on verifiability grounds, Volunteer Marek has repeatedly restored content that is not present in the citation (original research) and in some cases contradicted by other sources or the citation itself. Volunteer Marek failed to engage in meaningful discussion to rectify the issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Ealdgyth (last bullet point - Ellman)
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: Verification
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes (points 2.2, 4).

Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Dude. You used an anti-semitic source to attack a BLP, you used a source which didn't say AT ALL what you claimed it said, and then when you tried to kind of, sort, maybe correct it so that admins wouldn't ban hammer you, you... failed to verify what river actually flows through Poland. It's Vistula man. Volga's in Russia. All of this is like WPV101. Stones and glass houses. Mote here, beam there. Also, your "evidence" quite simply, makes false claims as has already been explained several times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Link #1. Speaking about evidence by Ealdgyth, he provides this edit by VM as potentially problematic. The edit is not really significant: key numbers and the overall meaning did not change after the edit by VM. He only used more sources (I checked some of these sources and made comment here) and he restored the phrase that according to Ellman these events "amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention". I agree: this is not an accurate description of views by Ellman: he discusses if these events "amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention" (here is my understanding). However, I think this is something really minor, and it has been already resolved on two pages after brief discussion. This is just a very minor content disagreement, which does not rise to the level of anything even remotely sanctionable. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Link #2. Here I can not understand a thing, and leave this to arbitrators.

Link #3. This is all about another contributor, Poeticbent. The only edit by VM is this, and I do not have a slightest idea why it should be considered problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek's editing on Polish Jews and antisemitism

6) Volunteer Marek has treated Jewishness as an immutable trait (describing former Jews as Jews), removed "Polish" as an adjective from the first lede sentence of Polish Jews, and openly advocated that for "people who were both Polish and Jewish" that both Polish and Jewish be removed from the lede. These editing practices are counter to MOS:ETHNICITY and community norms. Furthermore, Volunteer Marek has referred to editors, sources, and authors discussing antisemitism in Poland as bigoted,, prejudiced,, extremist,, racist,, "gratuitous stereotyping",, "rant is stuffed so full of nonsense",, and "stuffed full of inaccuracies, falsehoods, hyperbolic...".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The English Wikipedia presented a Polish right-wing POV not present in the Polish Wikipedia

7) Across many articles involving modern Polish history, English Wikipedia articles presented a Polish right-wing POV stance. The POV stance of the English Wikipedia surpassed that of the Polish Wikipedia which generally presented a POV more in line with global norms.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per:

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek POV/FRINGE
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: Verification
4. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent/Pitorus Holocaust rescue

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#Request for clarification by VM for Icewhiz for detailed analysis. As an illustrative example, see PolishWiki's lede:

Michał Rola-Żymierski , also Michał Żymierski, Michał Żymirski, ps. "Rola", "Morski", "Zawisza", responsible Michał Łyżwiński [a] [b] (born September 4, 1890 in Cracow , died October 15, 1989 in Warsaw ) - Polish soldier , reserve officer of the Austro-Hungarian Army , Brigadier General of the Polish Army in 1927 degraded , commander of the People's Army (1944) , Supreme Commander of the Polish Army , head and minister of national defense(1944-1949) and chairman of the State Security Commission , Polish Marshal , Member of the Presidium of the National National Council (1944-1947), Member of the Legislative Seym (1947-1952), member of the State Council (1949-1952), vice-president of the National Bank of Poland (from 1956), honorary president of the Main Board and the Supreme Council of the ZBoWiD , member of the Military Committee of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the PZPR , supervising the Polish Army from May 1949 [1].

vs. the EnglishWiki's lede:

Michał Rola-Żymierski (pronounced [ˈmixaw ˈrɔla ʐɨˈmjɛrskʲi]; September 4, 1890 – October 15, 1989) was a Polish high-ranking Communist Party leader, communist military commander, NKVD secret agent, and Marshal of Poland by Joseph Stalin's order from 1945 until his death. He supported the 1981 imposition of Martial law in Poland.[1]

Which per diff conforms to "restore previous NPOV version". Can you find anywhere else to tack on communist, Stalin, NKVD, support for Martial law in Poland, etc. in the English Wikipedia's version? Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The POV-stance of the English Wikipedia, on Polish modern history, has been a subject of contention across several articles (disputes on editorial discretion/writing, as well as use of extreme/dubious sources). Michał Rola-Żymierski is merely an illustrative example (which I spotted in the past month) - whose nature is glaring and requires zero domain knowledge, nor source inspection to parse. The English Wikipedia taking a nationalist stance that is well off to the right of the language-specific Wikipedia (Polish in this case) is highly abnormal - and is indicative of a problem on the English Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"anti-Polish POV" - this is a common trope within Poland - "Within Poland those who recite unpopular historical facts are frequently accused of running down their country, while those outside often find themselves confronted with the reproach of "anti-Polonism." - it is far from a neutral descriptor on a global scale ("anti-Polish POV" here - means a large chunk of Polish historians - as well as most historians outside of Poland). Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Lol wut? Since when does the English Wikipedia get to adjudicate Polish Wikipedia? And why are you even bringing up articles like Karol Świerczewski and Michał Rola-Żymierski since neither you nor Francois Robere have ever edited them (AFAICT)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this proposal is just bizarre. Am I missing something? AFAIK this has never even been a source of controversy before? Where you getting this stuff? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"whose nature is glaring and requires zero domain knowledge, nor source inspection to parse" - can you clarify what this is even suppose to mean?

"The English Wikipedia taking a nationalist stance" - what in the world are you going on about? Which parts of Michał Rola-Żymierski or Karol Świerczewski (two articles you've never edited) "take a nationalist stance"? What are you talking about??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It's quite random. I mean, consider Stawiski vs pl:Stawiski, an article which you cite you your evidence as well - the Polish Wikipedia article has no POV... as in not mentioning anything about the Jewish community. Is this a POV? Sure there is - if one wants to take an issue with some Polish villages being unduly dominated by the Jewish history. Like, again, Stawiski, where 50% if not of the article content is about WWII-era destruction of the Jewish community. Polish-right wing bias, errr? Except nobody ever challenged such articles (Stawiski is hardly unique; look at Adampol, Lublin Voivodeship, Biała Niżna or Błonie - 90% of content is Jewish history; ) because the Jewish history is notable, and we just need to expand other sections or split the Jewish history into their own subarticles (consider for example Bełżyce or History of the Jews in Adamów). Something to consider with regards to argument that some ghetto articles have 'too long' sections about Polish rescue efforts - as I said elsewhere, it just means we should expand those ghetto articles with other sections, ex. on post-war efforts to catch and sentence the Nazi administration and war crime perpetrators, stuff discussed in USHMM ghetto encyclopedia but generally totally absent from our ghetto articles. Information should not be removed, whether it is about Holocaust rescuers or about Jewish history in villages or about any other encyclopedic topic. The relevant policies are WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think if Icewhiz was less careful he would've stated it simply as "The English Wikipedia presented a Polish right-wing POV" - it's fairly obvious, and easily proven with RS. Just a couple of examples: this revision of Collaboration with the Axis Powers from Feb. 2018 (just before I got involved in this topic area), vs. the one from today: the old one has apologetic statements in every single paragraph... except the ones about Jews, which contain negative descriptors; the new one has little of that, is more accurate and concise; or this revision of the Home Army from April 2018 (just before my first edit there), vs. the current revision: the current one is much more comprehensive and accurate, and has little in the way of apologetics for the attitude of the Home Army towards the Jews' plight. No question about it - the old revisions of these articles reflected a very specific - and false - nationalistic ethos. François Robere (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Very specific doesn't always mean false. A balanced view is one that lies in the middle, per WP:NPOV, not one that represents only one side. I do appreciate how your and Icewhiz, among other editors, have helped center some of the articles. But what you call "Polish right-wing POV" is better called a "pro-Polish POV", and on its other side is "anti-Polish POV". Care should be taken to avoid either in our articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither sources nor editors who disagree with that particular group of myths are "anti Polish", and there are certainly wide swaths of Polish society who support impartial study of the past. Truth is never "for" or "against" anyone; ideologies are. François Robere (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has made false claims of "baiting"

8) Citing the "WP:BAIT" essay, which advocates that "baited" editors "don't take the bait" so that they won't be sanctioned under the civility policy, Volunteer Marek has alleged during the case that he had been "baited" by Icewhiz into making personal attacks versus Icewhiz. However, an analysis of the personal attacks in evidence reveals that Volunteer Marek was not "baited" into making them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#BAIT? Context of personal attacks by Volunteer Marek. Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

One can only hope ARBCOM will sift through the evidence and see how odious it is for a harassment victim to face accusations from the accused party (+friends) that they "brought this upon themselves" and "baited" the accused party into carrying out a sustained pattern of hounding ahd personal attacks. Not only that - but being personally attacked with the the trope (in this very particular context) of being "anti-Polish" during the case. This is victim blaming at its purest, should not he tolerated, and is toxic for the trust & safety of this community.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The victim of repeated personal attacks and hounding - as seen at User:Icewhiz/hounding. That I edited in May 2019 an article VM edited once (minor edit, punct) in 2009 and is most probably not on VM's watchlist (given they did not edit it in a decade) - followed by VM with this edit (note "crap" in edit summary) - is VM following me. Any use of the interaction tool on longterm contributors needs to be to time-gated to the relevant period.Icewhiz (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh please, you're no "harassment victim". You combed through my edits from years ago and then jumped in to restart old disputes and edit wars. You edited about three times as many articles that I have edited, but which you never edited before, than vice versa. You made disgusting false accusations against me repeatedly and you tried to do it in sneaky underhanded ways (because you had absolutely NO actual evidence) via insinuation. You repeatedly came to my talk page and left provocative messages despite me asking you several times to stay away. And you repeatedly lied about me. Hell, you're doing it right here. You do it in general by playing the martyr, where in fact you're the guy who stalked and harassed others. And you do it specifically, by for example claiming that I said that you "brought this upon themselves", which is a straight up 100% lie. I never said that. Why are you putting it in quotes? Are you worried that the evidence actually shows that your edits have been very problematic and that you've been provoking editors and creating a battleground, so you try to get sympathy by playing the victim (feel free to quote me that I accused you of "playing the victim", because that's exactly what you're doing).

THAT is odious and disturbing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, since you're the one being accused of baiting, it's kind of expected that you would claim that you weren't. But can you just drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude for a minute or two and let the ArbCom decide whether or not they find my evidence compelling? Should I go in and propose a FoF for each one of yours which says "Icewhiz made false claims in his Fof1", "Icewhiz made false claims in his FoF2", "Icewhiz made false claims in his FoF3" etc.

Then I guess you could go and start making FoFs about how "VM made false claims in his FoF X about Icewhiz making false claims in his FoF3 in which he claimed that VM made false claims in ..." and so on ad nauseum.

Honestly, can't you see how WP:TENDENTIOUS this is on your part and how it's really just ridiculous? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Mvbw has it exactly right below. There are only TWO possibilities here. Either 1) Icewhiz genuinely believes the nonsense about Poland being just "like North Korea and Iran", or about it being illegal in Poland to edit Polish Wikipedia on Polish-Jewish topics, or about anti-Nazi resistance being just like the Nazis, or 2) he just said this stuff because he knew it would provoke other editors and then he could run with WP:AE with the response. Neither one makes him look good. He is either indeed an extremist with some strange WP:FRINGE views, or he is baiting others.

Based on my long term interactions with him I'm inclined to think it's mostly 2) or possibly "2) being done to push 1)", but I guess it could be either. Hey. Let's find out. So Icewhiz can you state explicitly whether you think that:

• Freedom of speech and media in Poland is comparable to that in North Korea and Iran?
• That it might be illegal in Poland to edit Polish Wikipedia on Polish-Jewish topics?
• That anti-Nazi Polish resistance was no better than the Nazis, and that the Nazi Party had the same number of Righteous Among Nations as Polish anti-Nazi resistance?

I kind of anticipate that you're gonna post something irrelevant to distract, so I let me ask for a straight yes/no answer to these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, I think these comments by Icewhiz were wrong, inflammatory and contributed a lot to development of the battleground. Why he was doing them? There are two different explanations. (1) Icewhiz did it on purpose to inflame conflict and questionable comments by others, which would then allow him to report other contributors to WP:AE. That is what VM thinks. (2) It could be that Icewhiz honestly believes in the nonsense he is telling about Polish media and scholars, the comparisons of Polish anti-Nazi resistance fighters to Nazis, and so on . Then, this is "just" a strong anti-Polish sentiment of Icewhiz as I thought . But maybe this is the both explanations. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure how those comments "contributed a lot to development of the battleground" if VM was making disparaging comments at editors before Icewhiz made any of these comments, and across two different topic areas (the other being Trump's presidency). Also, why would anyone intentionally "bait" VM if they can get his rude, derogatory comments for no effort at all? François Robere (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek made personal attacks against Icewhiz on the case page, and was warned

9) Following this personal attack by Volunteer Marek, he was warned on 2 June 2019 to stop engaging in personal attacks by ARBCOM member SilkTork..

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fairly straightforward - it's also noted by SilkTork on the case request itself.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt - I did not accuse VM of "advocat(ing) Holocaust denial/distortion in Poland". That was a general introductory statement on currents in this topic area outside of Wikipedia. VM wasn't mentioned in the paragraph - and in fact was only mentioned a couple of paragraphs down in the context of "Volunteer Marek (VM), who adds little new content (see last article creation - one bareurl - a soldier's account), has been reverting and stonewalling corrections.". In regards to Polish-Jews, VM stated - "The difference between me and Icewhiz here is that while he objects to stating that a person was Jewish, he is insisting that we include that a person was Polish in the lede (this in the case of people who were both Polish and Jewish). I am saying, leave both out. See the double standard?" - explicitly advocating that Polish citizens who are Jewish (unlike other Polish citizens) - not be described as Polish in the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The comment was strongly worded but perfectly understandable given the disgusting insinuations you made against me. The fact that you were not indef banned right there and there still has me boggled. You falsely accused me of "advocat(ing) Holocaust denial/distortion in Poland". Without any evidence and in fact contrary to the nature of my edits. You falsely claimed that I "didn't consider Polish Jews Polish" which is total and utter horse... manure. You lied. You made a horrible false accusation just to "win" a content dispute. Other users - including your editing friends like Yanniv, have already gotten indef banned for stuff like this. If you really want to drag this out to exemplify your obvious disgusting behavior go ahead. It's unconscionable that so far you've been allowed to get away with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Volunteer Marek continued making personal attacks against Icewhiz throughout the case, despite being warned

10) Despite being warned on 2 June 2019, Volunteer Marek has continued to engage in personal attacks against Icewhiz throughout the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The comments of "his chicanery", "your manipulative nature" as well as talk of "anti-Polish cliches and stereotypes" (by a Poland-based historian of literature/cultural anthropologist/photographer ) are particularly hurtful. I shall quote historian Alina Cała (Poland based, specialist in Polish-Jewish history): "For the advocates of the national-Catholic outlook the concept of anti-Polonism is much clearer than that of antisemitism. It has been present in the Polish public discourse since the late 1960s. It has even earned a definition: “external or internal actions aimed at the destruction of the Polish state and nation, hostility towards Poland and Poles, use of lies and insinuations calculated to blacken the image of the nation”. In the popular usage the anti-Polonism is limited almost exclusively to the alleged ‘anti-Polish machinations’ on the part of Jews. Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Updated.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

How many times has it been explained to you that these were indeed sock puppets of neo-Nazi users and how you could verify that? WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. How many times has it been pointed out that the photographer which you keep calling a "historian" has no credentials or post in history? WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And yes, you actually DID make the argument that Jewish scholars and academics were pushing 'anti-semitic hate speech' (sic). You just didn't stop and think how absurd that was before writing it down. And yes, your accusations against me HAVE INDEED BEEN DISGUSTING. I honestly don't know of another word thats more appropriate. Here is the diff for my comment in case anyone is interested. And as far as ""Hey, Francois Robere, can you tell me how we could rescue the puppies you and Icewhiz (potentially) drown?" - you fail to note that this is in response to Francois Robere demanding to know how Wikipedia will be protected from... future HOAXES that I am planning to create (!!!!). If you have a problem with my response you should really have a problem with Francois Robere's initial "have you stopped beating your wife" question. But no, you just present it out of context and cherry pick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Also your last three FoFs are basically the same thing over and over again - it's basically: 1) Make false accusations against VM 2) VM complains 3) Use VM's complaint in your evidence 4) VM complains about your complaint 5) Use VM's complaint about your complain in your evidence... etc. oh when will this cycle end???!!?? Are you just trying to flood this page with text so that readers can't find the supported evidence against you? It's about quality not quantity. You may have the latter, but in terms of your evidence all you have is "VM dared to disagree with me about what's in sources" and "VM didn't like it when I accused him of stuff". On the other hand your sanctionable behavior is very well documented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Community encouraged (clean-up)

1) The community is encouraged to make use of the material presented in this case to organize a systematic clean-up effort for Poeticbent's past contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology, remedy for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#Poeticbent hoax creation. To date I am unaware of any systemic effort to review Poeticbent's edits.Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Everyone's older edits need cleanup. Mine, I'd wager, and honestly, even yours too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek 1-way interaction ban with Icewhiz

2) Volunteer Marek is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing Icewhiz anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per FOFs above (harrassment, hounding, personal attacks).Icewhiz (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Although there are many mutual accusations, this is hardly an interpersonal conflict between two people. Both contributors edit in subject areas much wider than the Polish-Jewish relations and had no problems interacting out there. The conflict is localized to the area of Polish-Jewish history, and it is actually between Icewhiz and a group of other long-term contributors. Given the battleground attitude of Icewhiz (and not only with regard to VM, as should be clear from the events on WP:AE ), I would suggest to topic ban Icewhiz, but obviously, this is something for the Arbs to decide. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: So when he files a broad ARB/R you say it's "BATTLEGROUND", and when he asks for a narrow sanction you say it's too narrow? And it's really not "Icewhiz vs. the rest" as much as "the rest vs. the rest", as I explain below. François Robere (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As noted above, I think there is merit to this as a 2-way interaction ban. It takes two to tango. But it seems that both of you want an interaction ban of sorts, and I think the community should accommodate your wishes and see if half a year or a year of such a mutual iban makes this topic area less battleground-like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek banned from edits related to Jews

3) Volunteer Marek is banned from making edits relating to Jews or commenting on the characteristics of Jewish editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per:

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#Volunteer Marek's editing on Polish Jews and antisemitism - including overtly stating we should remove "Polish" as an adjective from the lede of Polish Jews, ("while he objects to stating that a person was Jewish, he is insisting that we include that a person was Polish in the lede (this in the case of people who were both Polish and Jewish). I am saying, leave both out. See the double standard?), a statement not retracted.
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#Volunteer Marek failed to follow the verifiability policy
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#Volunteer Marek continued making personal attacks against Icewhiz throughout the case, despite being warned - in particular "thanks for illustrating your manipulative nature here" and "an "essay" by a photographer full of anti-Polish cliches and stereotypes" (denying professional credentials of literature historian/cultural anthropologist writing on antisemitism, actually a peer reviewed journal article cited in another journal article which also cites Shmeruk(1985) for the statement).

Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I urge Arbs to read Alina Cała - paper - in regards to anti-Polonism (anti-Polish). VM's comments during arbitration - "thanks for illustrating your manipulative nature here" and "an "essay" by a photographer full of anti-Polish cliches and stereotypes" - are troubling.Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I have NEVER "commented on the characteristics of Jewish editors". This is another completely hideous, offensive, disgusting insinuation by Icewhiz. This is beyond the pale. How the hell is Icewhiz allowed to get away with this???

What the hey do any of these diffs have to do with "Jewish editors" or "Jews" for that matter? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

And just in case there was ANY doubt that Icewhiz is engaging in purposeful and intentional baiting, as soon as I replied to this sick smear he ran and put my response in his evidence. That's WP:GAME. You will never see a more pertinent example of someone attempting to WP:GAME the rules in real time than right here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think the problem is with Jews as such, but he's certainly too sensitive to certain historical narratives. I'd limit this to the context of WWII and the Polish People's Republic. François Robere (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Here is the problem. I do not see any negative generalized comments by VM with regard to representatives of any ethnic group. To the contrary, I have seen comments by VM where he objected to racialist views and editing by some contributors who were banned. On the other hand, I saw comments by Icewhiz where he made generalized negative comments about all Polish media and all Polish victims of Nazi (see my evidence). Yes, VM criticized Icewhiz for his editing and his battleground attitude, but not because Icewhiz belongs to a certain ethnic group. I think that anyone who, like Icewhiz, accuses other contributors of something like that without any actual evidence does not belong to the project. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Vastly disproportionate and far beyond anything that could be justified by the evidence presented. Even if every piece of evidence Icewhiz presented was taken at face value, with the framing Icewhiz gave it, it still would not justify this proposal. Even in Icewhiz' own interpretation of events, in other words, none of the proposed findings of fact support the idea that VM has any general problems editing topics related to Jews or Judaism outside the scope of a conflict with Icewhiz; that sort of evidence would be necessary for such a sweeping one-sided ban from a topic area. --Aquillion (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• And a month in the proceeding, we arrive at what I predicted in my evidence - a final goal of winning content disputes through administrative sanctions. Not cool. Just like I wouldn't support a topic ban on Icewhiz, whose contributions have improved the articles, I also don't see any reason to topic ban anyone else. The article content in this area has been improved over the last year or two and this is not a result of multiple editors working together. We just need to be able to work in a more friendly fashion, and trying to get others sanctioned is not very conductive to building good working relationships... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We are here to build an encyclopedia

1) We are here to Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Editors should work in a collegial manner to create and improve the article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Avoiding battleground

2) Editors should avoid actions that promote WP:BATTLEGROUND, such as 1) personal attacks against other editors, 2) controversial aspersions against authors of sources cited, particularly where they can infringe upon WP:BLP 3) adding WP:REDFLAG content with inadequate sourcing 4) or by removing uncontroversial, relevant content, as such actions can antagonize and radicalize other editors and lead to the loss of good faith in the other party. Uncontroversial, relevant content which is poorly sourced should be tagged with {{Citation needed}}, {{Unreliable source?}}, {{Self-published inline}} or such to encourage other editors to improve referencing quality without compromising current verifiability. Editors are also reminded of WP:BRD.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reliable sourcing and encyclopedia building reminder

1) Editors should use quality sources per WP:RS, WP:V. Editors are encouraged to replace low quality sources with high quality sources. Editors should avoid using low quality sources for any controversial (WP:REDFLAG) claims. Low quality sources used for any controversial claims can be removed by any editor together with said controversial claims. Low quality sources used for uncontroversial claims which are relevant to the article should instead be tagged with {{Unreliable source?}}, {{Self-published inline}} or other relevant template, as they still serve the purpose of verifiability. Adding controversial content, or removing relevant, uncontroversial content without prior discussion and consensus should be avoided, as it can promote a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Encouraging cooperation

2) If an editor active in this content area wants to do a significant edit that may be controversial, and if they are aware of other parties that may be interested in this, they should demonstrate good faith and desire to reach consensus by explaining it on talk with a ping and/or notifying relevant WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland or Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In my capacity as an uninvolved newbie in-over-their-head, I would endorse this remedy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discretionary sanctions authorized

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for Antisemitism, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This topic area is already under EE, but there may be merit for antisemitism elsewhere. I will note however that AE is ill-equipped to deal with misrepresentation of sources (citation says X, article says not X) and use of really sketchy source (i.e. antismeitic sources, holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists). Unless it is crystal clear - this is viewed as a content dispute at AE. Currently, AE is good for personal attacks, 1RR, stuff like that. In the closed ARCA I tallied a "List of prior AE actions" (collapsed, open it up) - basically most of the complains were on sketchy sources and misrepresentations. With one notable exception (Stawiski) as well as a sourcing restriction (which did help!) on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland - editors were sanctioned for personal attacks and battleground - not for source misrepresentation. Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Honestly, this is what is needed: Eastern Europe is already under DS but what makes this area so toxic is the extreme emotions people have over this subject, and those are justified but can often lead to conflict in a collaborative project. These issues are also present in British Labour Party articles to a lesser degree, and are mainly being dealt with by the BLP DS, just as EE is being stretched to deal with it here. ArbCom should just create an overarching antisemitism DS in this case to avoid having to do it in 6-12 months when it pops up in another topic area. Plus, it’d also help deal with a lot of the alt-right nonsense and hopefully forestall the inevitable AP3 ArbCom case until after those of you who don’t want to deal with it are off the committee... TonyBallioni (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Except this case is not about antisemitism. But since the case was improperly named, and despite this issue being raised hours after that, it has remained badly named, well, here we go. Sure, let's pass a DS for antisemitism. It won't address the issue here at all, but hey, missing the forest for the trees wouldn't be the first here, eh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Problem is, admins have no idea what antisemitism is. You seem to expect a swastika-adorning, leather-clad skinhead, and completely miss the friendly grandma next door who walks around mumbling "it's all because of the Jews!". Whatever your intentions may be, if your guideline as to what constitutes racism is this piece of naive, simplistic and poorly-written prose (which I believe was composed by some of the admins), then you're bound to make Wikipedia a safer place for racists than to anyone trying to call them out. We don't need more rules, we need more informed admins. François Robere (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not really see how this case is related to the subject of antisemitism. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually User:TonyBallioni, I think simply banning Icewhiz from participating at WP:AE would solve 90% of the problems (see my analysis above). If he can't run to WP:AE over every disagreement, he might actually start acting more collaboratively on talk pages rather than obstructing, obfuscating, making outlandish provocative statements, and derailing discussions just as they become constructive (Icewhiz does NOT actually want the problems resolved amicably because then he doesn't have an excuse to ask for sanctions, likewise he avoids WP:RSN and other dispute resolution boards because with a few exceptions when uninvolved editors get involved in the content they tend to point out the problems with his behavior). Take away his main weapon and the shooting will stop. Or at least lessen.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, this would solve a lot of the current problems in the Israel-Palestine topic area, so you'd actually be getting a two for the price of one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

On our culture of discussion

1) Talk pages are not forums nor social networking sites - they are work environments. Editors active on talk pages are expected to treat and be treated by others in a respectful, professional manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Our standards of civility are incredibly low, allowing for unacceptable behaviors to pass as legitimate and making interaction in some areas toxic (just review the discussions on this page if you've any doubt)); this, in turn, causes "real world" stress and angst among those involved. This is a familiar problem to anyone who spent some time on social networks like Facebook and Twitter; the difference is Wikipedia is not a social network - it has formally defined goals, and toxic behaviors don't serve these goals. We need better standards, and being that we're all relative strangers sharing a work environment in advancement of some shared goal, the natural "real world" parallels are workplaces and similar work environments (NGOs, academic committees etc.). Bottom line: we all deserve as much respect as we would've received in any (civil) "real world" situation; if a statement from one editor to another wouldn't have been accepted in the "real world", it shouldn't be accepted here either. François Robere (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

2) WP:NPA is policy; its enforcement is not optional.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

NPA is rarely enforced by admins on ANI/AE or DS-ed articles. This is to remind them that NPA is policy, and should be enforced. François Robere (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that NPA is being overlooked here, and should be enforced as any other policy. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. See WP:PAIN. Maybe one day I'll try to write an essay or article on why that, sadly, failed... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

On bias and prejudice

3) Wikipedia is a reflection of human society. As such, expressions of bias and prejudice among its editors are to be expected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The usual approach to bias on ANI/AE is "we don't talk about it", but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Dealing with bias in contentious areas like nationalism, ethnicity and religion, requires first admitting that it's there. François Robere (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

4) Bias and prejudice are not always overt and explicit; oftentimes they are not even aware. Neither one is a "content issue".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Admins and editors have repeatedly shown little understanding of what constitutes "bias" and "prejudice" (see reply to TonyBallioni below), frequently mixing the two with legitimate opinions and actions. This simple statement by ARBCOM could be the beginning of setting that straight. François Robere (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

On administrators' responsibilities

5) Admins have a responsibility to the community to enforce its rules and facilitate its collective endeavor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again Re:NPA, but also as a basis for the "escalation of longstanding disputes" "remedy". François Robere (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Enforcing NPA

1) Administrators are encouraged to enforce NPA, but do so sensibly - taking into account the frequency and severity of offensive statements, as well as recent interactions between the parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To prevent over-zealous enforcement, eg. of one-time infractions or against editors who fell for "baits". François Robere (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Providing access to sources on bias and prejudice

2) The Committee will ask the MediaWiki Foundation to provide the community with expert resources on bias and prejudice, under a suitable Creative Commons license.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wishful thinking. I mean ... hell yeah! Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@Volunteer Marek: Right? It's hard to imagine anyone on Wikipedia doing what "real world" organization do when they try to tackle ingrained organizational problems: get outside help. François Robere (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see this passed, just to see what WMF does. Seriously, I do think WMF needs to do more; such as hire on-staff psychologists and therapists and such to act as Councillors and mediators. A researcher or two that would focus on such issues as well. I mean, EVE-Online, a computer game, has hired several economists because they figured out economy is a major part of the game, and they need not just expert coders but also expert economists to make sure it runs smoothly. WMF needs to finally see that we don't just need better code, but better community too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree. There are two related problems: one is that Wikipedia doesn't really acknowledge expertise - the "other side of the dime" of a completely open crowd-sourced platform - which means some things (Policy, articles on Philip Roth books) are designed or written by people who aren't well-equipped to design or write them (non-lawyers, not Philip Roth), and the system is not quick to self-correct. The other problem is, indeed, that that's been the case from the beginning: a global system of scholarship that doesn't seem to have been designed by scholars, sociologists, organization psychologists or anyone else with domain expertise. There are similar criticisms of Facebook. François Robere (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Assessing bias and prejudice

3) Editors and administrators active in cases likely involving bias or prejudice are encouraged to educate themselves on what these are and what they are not; how they are expressed; and when legitimate interests, beliefs and editorial considerations cross the line to tendentious editing, prejudice and bias.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See principle #4. François Robere (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

4) The community is encouraged to develop better guidelines for handling tendentious and disruptive editing in the context of complex disagreements that likely reflect "real world" current affairs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A lot of nice ideas, I just don't think they are particularly realistic or enforceable. It's all a variant of what I said on 'we should follow WP:AGF', really. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the crux of the problem! If you're forced to AGF ad infinitum, then how do you deal with cases where an editor is not acting in good faith? You can't point out bias, prejudice or source misrepresentation, as that would "violate" AGF! Without having tools to discern between honest disagreements and errors, and bad faith acts, how do you deal with the latter effectively? François Robere (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

How to know whether someone is acting in a bad faith or whether you are suffering from a condition that prevents you from realizing you are? That's a million wikibucks question, right here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Escalation of longstanding disputes

5) Where administrators find themselves unable to resolve a severe and longstanding dispute, they should direct the parties to ARBCOM or make a preliminary ARB/R themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@François Robere: How is this a remedy? There's more than one way to solve a severe and longstanding dispute besides arbcom (mainly WP:AN, WP:AE, and WP:RFC). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but we went through all of these perhaps two dozen times in the past year and a half, and here we are at Arb. RfC was fruitful (see here), but hard; and ANI/AE was mostly useless, owing to the admins' unwillingness to get involved in a complex case like this (Icewhiz filed an amendment request with much of that history a couple of months ago, but I can't find it). The idea is that if ANI/AE takes more of a leadership role rather than just rejecting cases, complex disagreements like this would find their way to ARBCOM earlier, and resolve faster. François Robere (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The Amendment request is here. My point is that the way this is worded makes it apply to every long standing dispute. If you need help drafting proposals, you are free to ask the clerks of this case or review previous decisions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the point. There's no reason situations like this would occur, regardless of topic. In a way this a reflection of the usual "gradual escalation" principal of dispute resolution, also implied in WP:DISPUTE: you start with the least intrusive means for resolving a dispute, and only escalate if those means fail. The difference is, I want the admins to play an active role in the escalation, instead of a passive one. This ARBCOM case was brought about in a similar way, by an admin realizing AE won't cut it; but instead of just rejecting the case, like 8-9 other admins before him, he escalated it. François Robere (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sure the Arbs will love a remedy that will direct even more squabbles in their direction... :> Hey, how about we ask them to create a standing Committee for mediation in this topic area?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the reasons this has been going for so long the way it has was DRN's ineffectiveness - no one really wanted to take this case, and not everyone even wanted to file it (I'm not sure what happened with Snowycats's offer). Plus, mediation isn't obligatory. If we had an effective mediation process it could've worked. Ealdgyth was involved from time to time, but her alone wasn't enough - hence the repeated filings with other admins to "bring order to the house". Your suggestion could certainly work. François Robere (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see that offer, but it's a good idea. Recently User:Paul Siebert tried a bit of mediation. Maybe a constructive proposal / remedy would be to create some Mediation Committee for this area? As long as Committee members don't have to staff it themselves, this might have a chance of passing, particularly is some people would volunteer here to do it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort#Neutral_point_of_view. Relevant to the present case as much of the disputes are about appropriate use of sources and proper WP:WEIGHT. Supporting evidence: Icewhiz identified problematic content & sourcing (mine); Evidence presented by Calthinus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticism and casting aspersions

An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#Criticism and casting aspersions. Relevant to the present case due to heightened tensions and disputes frequently taken over by invectives. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Support, just like in general anything that reminds people about CIV, NPA, AGF etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Tatzref promoted fringe POV

1) Tatzref promoted fringe POV in the realm of the Judeo Bolshevism / Żydokomuna canard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sourcing restriction

1) Articles on pre-1989 Polish-Jewish history are placed under sourcing restriction. Only high-quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

With regard to the first part, there are lots of sources by prominent historians who satisfy WP:RS but who write popular books. For example, under this restriction Nechama Tec's Defiance would not qualify. Likewise, most of the stuff published by the US Holocaust Museum, or Yad Vashem would not qualify. Extensive articles in NY Review of Books by prominent historians would not qualify. This is WAY too restrictive.

With regard to second part, the trouble is always with "of equal quality and relevance". Editors like Icewhiz simply assert that *any* English source is automatically superior to a Polish source simply by virtue of being in English. That's bonkers. Lots of the disputes stem precisely from the fact that sometimes it's hard to say clearly which source is of higher quality. Usually they differ in emphasis. Polish sources tend to be more focused and based on archival research. English language sources tend to be WP:TERTIARY and at a very general level. Because of difficulties with language and access to primary sources, they tend to get basic things wrong (places, names, organizations).

We already have a robust WP:RS policy. It just needs to be observed. More over, lots of problems over the past two years with these editors have resulted not from usage of unreliable sources (though there's been some of that), but from misrepresentation of reliable sources. THAT is a much bigger problem here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Your own evidence indicates that this restriction is not necessary. All you're showing is that a user said on talk page that a source you think is unreliable, is reliable. But... has there been any issues with anyone removing this source? No. All the crappy sources that Icewhiz has brought up here, either they were never actually used, or if they were removed, no one objected. This is a non-problem.

Nota bene - this proposal was roughly already made in front of the committee in a sightly different form and rejected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. This would rectify many of the issues here. For most top-level articles non-English sources (German, Hebrew, Polish, Yiddish, Russian) are not required - English accounts for a large proportion of the academic writing on the topic (with many German, Polish, and Israeli scholars regularly publishing in English at least part of their work - and those few of note that don't - get cited by others). I do think most USHMM and Yad Vashem scholarly publications (as opposed to educational material, testimonies, righteous database, survivor database) are peer reviewed - e.g. the USHMM camp encyclopedia is. The ability of editors to spot and rectify misrepresentations in non-English sources is much lower than English sources - if this is coupled with the source not being available online and in few libraries outside of a limited geographical area - it is even more difficult. If someone misrepresents an article in English available on JSTOR - he'd get call out very swiftly. Misrepresentations of a non-English book, not available online.... Can linger very long. Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Two things: we already have a perfectly good Wikipedia policy on this. It's WP:RS. It just needs to be followed. Again, I note that when somebody removes clearly non-RS sources, nobody objects, hence this appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Second, sourcing policy and guidelines are really up to the community, not ArbCom. This is something that could be decided at WP:ANI or through a general RfC on the topic (going waayyyyy back into Wikipedia history, I'm reminded of the Gdansk Vote). Indeed, for something like this to actually be workable (and perhaps it would be) you would need the input of a significant number of editors, particularly those with some expertise and knowledge in, if not this topic area, history and particularly non-Western world history (less we get into WP:SYSTEMICBIAS). I don't know if we have any historians on the ArbCom currently or folks with expert knowledge in related areas.

I have no problem with the last sentence of the proposal and have implicitly called for something like that in the past repeatedly. I do have some concerns about this kind of provision about "escalating topic bans" being weaponized in furtherance of WP:BATTLEGROUND given the history of some editors in this topic area, but I would support it, if that particular sentence was split off into its own proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In other words, just because Icewhiz uses unreliable Polish sources in his edits I don't see why other editors, who use reliable Polish sources should be penalized for Icewhiz's actions. The problem is with him. Address the real problem, not an imaginary one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Ok, so Tec qualifies (even though it's a book for a popular audience and she's a sociologist not a historian - but I can accept that), how about Timothy Snyder writing in the New York Review of Books?

The thing is, the actual non-reliable sources like this Mark Paul guy ... nobody here thinks they should be used and there's no objections to them being removed. Well, maybe Tatzref (I haven't looked that closely) but even then, we do have WP:CONSENSUS not to use him. Same goes for Anna Poray or whoever. Problem doesn't actually exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Well, I did make an exception for Tatzref, and Piotrus comment there is that MP could possibly be used for non-controversial claims. Even if you disagree with that, that's not really standing in a way of removing of MP from articles nor does it make it challenging. AFAICR, when MP was removed as source, those removals weren't reverted or undone.

It'd be simpler here to just reiterate that self-published sources cannot be used in this topic area and be done with it, rather than inventing some new convoluted and unnecessary sourcing restriction that may ended up accerbating the BATTLEGROUND in the topic, as editors start to argue over whether a particular source falls under this restriction or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Also, K.e., I'm fine with us sitting down and discussing and coming to an agreement as to what sources can and cannot be used. But this is a much more of a complicated issue than something that can be decided simply by ArbCom fiat. See my proposal below. After this is over we can start a dedicated sub-page (a workshop if you will) to hash this out. As long as this involves editors who are acting in good faith (like yourself), I have hopes that it would work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Please see my evidence: Sourcing/civility restriction has worked in the past. The language is copied from Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland. . The date is somewhat arbitrary, but gives enough buffer (30 years) and aligns with the year that Poland began to emerge as a democracy; see: History of Poland (1989–present). The restriction would thus apply to historical subjects where the presence of peer-reviewed sources, whether in English or Polish, is a given. Supporting evidence: Tatzref: Sourcing (Francois Robere); Removing unsuitable sources has been challenging (mine). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if this is adopted, it wouldn't change anything since the discussions on what is a "high quality source" and what is not would continue without a pause. And the attempts to exoand WP:NONENG to remove Polish sources are not particularly helpful. A lot of quality research has been published in Polish first or Polish only. To look no further, the new book by Grabowski, Dalej jest noc, which I'd expect you or Icewhiz would consider a reliable source (as do I, for the record) has not been published in English yet (translation is 'forthcoming'). It took two years for his Hunt for the Jews to be translated to English; Gross' Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland which can be said to have started the modern-era discourse on all those issues was published in Polish first (2000), with the English edition a year later. Any proposal that would limit editors ability to quote from recent works by reliable scholars under a claim that 'comparable research in English does not make such claims whatever' is not a good idea. Like it or not, a lot of groundbreaking research on those topics comes from Polish scholars. Some of whom disagree with others, of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Arbcom should not rule on content. Something like WP:MEDRS is possible, but should be decided by community. However, I would be opposed to this because I think this narrowly defined subject area is not anything special. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Responses:

• @MVBW: This is not a ruling on content.
• @Piotrus:
  • What qualifies as high-quality sources is specified in the proposal: specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. No guesswork is required.
  • The proposal doesn't preclude use of Polish-language sources, so mentions of Dalej jest noc etc are off-topic.
• @VM:
  • The misrepresentation of sources is covered; it's addressed in the last sentence.
  • Tec's Defiance was published by Oxford University Press: , which peer reviews its books. It qualifies.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You suggest Arbcom to rewrite WP:RS, specifically for this subject area. Rewriting basic policies should be done only by community. Also, you say "specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals". Actually, peer-reviewed original papers are excluded per WP:MEDRS if we are looking for analogy. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a suggestion to rewrite WP:RS either. Merely an expansion of the AE remedy imposed here: AE:François Robere. See DS-notice at Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not see it before. Indeed, the banner tells "Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers.". That does looks to me as admins exceeding their mandate because such notice effectively negates/changes WP:RS. Arbcom usually rejects such things (see here), and for a good reason. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: In re: The thing is, the actual non-reliable sources like this Mark Paul guy ... nobody here thinks they should be used and there's no objections to them being removed -- Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Evidence#Removing unsuitable sources has been challenging where I provide examples of Tatzref and Piotrus arguing for the retention of "Mark Paul". It required an RSN discussion & an RfC to get him removed. (A third editor also supported retention but I did not mention them as they are currently topic banned). --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has ever showed that factual information presented by Paul is incorrect, and he is cited by some scholars. Yes, there is probably a source or two which states that he represents a Polish narrative that unduly stresses Polish rescue. Shrug. Yes, he is effectively a SPA who only writes about Polish rescue, but again, if his facts are correct, what is the problem? Well, of course if he was used to push a POV... but I never supported using him for opinions, just uncontroversial statements of fact that have never been challenged. Ditto with Poray or more recently LP Foundation. Those are useful sources as long as we use them for unncontroversial statements of facts, not opinions, and as long as we observe WP:UNDUE in article's content. RS and such do allow the use of amateur historians or such if there is agreement that they are correct, written by experts, etc. Now, for years we had and still have some disagreements on whether Paul and others pass this or not. I still say that those sources seem to be written by experts and are accepted as such by other experts (the scholars who cite them). Clearly, we disagreed and still disagree on this. But such disagreements on content and so on are not what ArbCom exists to solve. We have RfC and such for those, and those do work, more or less, even if we are not always happy with their results. Neither side should try to use ArbCom to bypass RfC and normal community procedures which work just fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: A source is either part of peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers, or it's not. How would the use of peer-reviewed sources accerbat[e] the BATTLEGROUND in the topic? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There is definitely grey areas when it comes to more obscure journals or in-house publications from research institutions. And in regard to reputable historians publishing in other venues, like Timothy Snyder in New York Review of Books, or Yad Vashem papers or publications from the USHMM. The restriction will just result in (some) folks running off to WP:AE to file spurious reports. As I've said, we have RS and everyone agrees that SPS and such should not be used.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Civility restriction

1) Articles on Polish-Jewish history are placed under civility restriction. Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would be fine if it's combined with some kind of serious sanction against users who made odious false accusations like Icewhiz did in his request for this case, and then again in his evidence (he removed that part after my rebuttal). A lot of what you refer to as "incivility" is simply a natural reaction that anyone with any decency will have to being falsely accused of stuff like this.

The other big issue is just plain stone walling and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, as well as outright WP:BAITing by Icewhiz and Francois Robere. In one instance that you provide, Icewhiz made a BLP attack on a historian, I had to ask THREE times for him to provide a source, he refused, and then he falsely insisted that he had already done so. Another instance is just me expressing amazement that Icewhiz would claim to be restoring a "STABLE version" ... of an article created just barely hours ago (see the problem there?) The big problem in this area ain't incivility or personalizing disputes. It's this over the top WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:CPUSH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Please see my evidence: Sourcing/civility restriction has worked in the past. The language is copied from Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland: (top of diff). Supporting evidence: VM: PA, ASPERSIONS and assumptions of bad faith & Xx236: PA (François Robere); VM unnecessarily personalized disputes (mine). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Tatzref topic banned

3) For promotion of fringe theories, Tatzref is indefinitely topic banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Aligns with FoF above: #Tatzref promoted fringe POV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I am generally uneasy with topic bans for people who are not edit warring, just presenting arguments on talk and occasionally adding content. Some of his sources may be problematic, but censoring someone right to participate in discussions/etc. should not be done lightly. Particularly considering that AFAIK Tatzref has always been civil and did not display any battlegound mentality. To censor polite editors who at worst have some POV that they argue for in the WP:BRD fashion, without edit warring, is IMHO hardly going to improve the situation in this topic area. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Expanded at #Tatzref promoted fringe POV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Topic banned from which topic? Fringe theories? I agree, editing by this user looks suspicious/problematic, but probably beyond the scope of this case. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Tatzref topic banned from all Jewish topics. This is easy. This way if he decides to be useful on Polish history not involving Jews, he still can, and the problem is eliminated. Surgical precision.--Calthinus (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, M.D. François Robere (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As I noted above, I do not believe any editor in this topic area needs a topic ban, and I do think that statement includes Tatzref. He is not edit warring, and if you disagree with him (as do I, on occasion), discussion on talk is sufficient. He may disagree with you (us), but that's not a reason to topic ban him. We ban people if they edit war and are disruptive, not because they have a POV we dislike. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Template

4) { }

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Icewhiz has made numerous BLP violations regarding academics and scholars

1) Icewhiz has violated WP:BLP policy by using questionable sources and/or emphasizing exclusively negative information in articles on living subjects as well as on various talk pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The worst one is Icewhiz using anti-semitic sources to smear a BLP, and making up quotations for a historian which the subject never said . But there's a ton of other, similar, violations . Keep in mind that this is a non-exhaustive list .

An aggravating factor is that while Icewhiz publicly insists that he is in favor of using "only high quality scholarly" sources, when it comes to attacking BLPs he is quite content to use low quality, trashy sources, and often does not even bother sourcing his attacks at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles affected: Norman Davies Bogdan Musial John Radzilowski Gunnar Paulsson Richard C. Lukas Piotr Gontarczyk Antony Polonsky (more), also Tomasz Strzembosz (dead for 15 years but same kind of edits)

• Arbs - please examine the actual diffs, as opposed to VM's description of them. I also refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#mini-Rebuttal and will be happy to address each an every one. The first diff is an WP:ABOUTSELF (views of subject from oped published by subject in Tygodnik Solidarność and republished elsewhere) situation (from March 2018) already previous discussed at AE (twice), I will note that I have since (entirely on my own accord) avoided for the most part ABOUTSELF for opeds/opinions published in non-mainstream locations. As for the rest - using publications from scholars describing an author's work is generally not a BLP-vio. Discussing a proposed source on a talk-page is also generally not a WP:BLPTALK issue - and I've generally provided sources (sometimes elsewhere in the thread) for any factual assertions (as opposed to commentary/analysis of source suitability) I've made on BLP scholars. Where I haven't - e.g. this discussion on using Norman Davies - the issue is widely known and easily sourced (and usually present on the relevant Wikipedia article). As an example, in regards to Norman Davies' tenure - this has been widely covered - e.g. this book, and Davies has stated as much himself in a lawsuit he lodged: NYT: - "A lawsuit by a British scholar who contends he was denied a professorship because Jewish faculty members considered his work "insensitive" toward Jews and "unacceptably defensive" of Polish gentiles in World War II .... Mr. Davies's lawsuit contends that the vote was based not on bona fide academic criteria but on a "conspiracy" to deny him the position "because of political views plaintiff had expressed in his written publications with respect to Poland, the Soviet Union and the teaching of Polish and Soviet history which such defendants believed, among other things, to be insensitive to people of the Jewish faith and unacceptably defensive of the behavior of the Polish people, particularly during the German occupation of Poland in World War II." Discussing whether a source is possibly WP:PARTISAN (in this case - in regards to the Home Army treatment of Jews) is what talk pages are for. Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  I will also note that diffs such as these by VM, where he denies the academic credentials of a subject "Janicka is a photographer, not a historian..." when the subject is in fact "Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature, cultural anthropologist, photographer ... PhD at Warsaw University (2004) ... Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences." are probably more questionable from a BLP standpoint than pointing out Davies' tenure rejection at Standford. Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  In regards to "single NGO" - we're talking about the Southern Poverty Law Center profiling this individual (twice, over a decade) - and specifically also covering his writings/opinions on the topic matter we're discussion. As for the "essay" published by this individual - I will note that the "essay" seems awfully well informed regarding editing on Wikipedia. In particular the mention of the Wrangell Bombardment ( - paragraph prior to last) - something brought up by Volunteer Marek in this arbitration - diff and previously as well (for some reason VM thinks I should be beholden evermore to his service for copy edits performed for 11 minutes - 02:06-02:17 - well I will say thank you for the copy edits, but really - I don't decide on whether to edit or not to edit Polish topics (heck - I'm not sure I knew back then VM was involved in Polish topics) based on a copy edit!) - as a rather interesting coincidence. In terms of Trust & Safety in this community - how many editors want to be constantly followed around, personally attacked, and have a column devoted to them by a SPLC-profiled individual? Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, in fact she is a photographer not a historian. Does she have a degree in history? No. Does she have a degree in cultural anthropology? No. Does she hold an academic position in history? No. Does she hold a position in cultural anthropology? No. She has a degree in literature and has had some photography exhibition. Which means she's perfectly reliable for literature or photography topics, not for historical facts. And she of course can call herself whatever she wants to. So can I. But that's not how we determine reliability, nor is it something that's forbidden to be discussed on the talk page. This is NOTHING like your BLPVIOs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• • Yes, Arbs, please examine the diffs. Like this one where Icewhiz completely makes up the fact that the subject said something about "American Jews" even though that is completely false. Examine this diff where Icewhiz pretends to source this by using an anti-semitic source (prawy.pl). Examine all the diffs where then Icewhiz tried to claim the edit was justified because of "something something WP:ABOUTSELF", even though the subject never said anything like that. How in the freakin' world can WP:ABOUTSELF apply, when the subject never wrote what Icewhiz claims (that's putting aside that ABOUTSELF does not justify controversial BLP statements)??? This is just very very lame excuse making and obfuscation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Or examine this diff where Icewhiz compares Bronislaw Wildstein to Joe McCarthy (because Wildstein was a dissident who opposed communism in Poland) without ANY sources. For God's sake, PLEASE examine the diffs! Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Examine this diff where Icewhiz uses an article by a guy who as editor of American Conservative published white supremacists, and who thinks that "Poles lack common sense". Examine this diff to also see how Icewhiz changes "Polonophile" (what's wrong with that?) to "different camp of historians" insinuating that there's something fringe about him (there is no "camps" here). Examine the diffs. In the same diff, which you should examine, Icewhiz speculates about the subject's denial of tenure without any sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is indeed a large number of diffs in Evidence (see sections by VM and Piotrus) where Icewhiz is trying to disparage and belittle historians and their writings because they are considered, rightly or no, as "right wing", even though their views typically do not qualify as WP:FRINGE. Doing so is POV-pushing and against WP:BLP. At the same time, Icewhiz is trying to whitewash crimes by "left-wing" communist functionaries like here ,,,. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Some of them aren't even "right wing" by any stretch. Timothy Snyder. Norman Davies. The very source Icewhiz tries to use to smear them explicitly states that these dudes are very critical of the current right wing government of Poland. This does not mean that "right wing" applies to the other BLPs Icewhiz attacked - I'm just doing this off the top of my head and these are the two which are probably most famous. Again, this is just made up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As noted, I see three issues here. One, undue stress in lead on qualities such as 'associated with extreme far-right, profiled as antisemitic by a single NGO', etc. Second, stressing this on this on talk, ex. re Chodakiewicz, calling him effectively antisemitic left and right in all discussions. Finally, as noted in my evidence, this particular subject, through not active on Wikipedia, has become aware of Icewhiz activities and critique of himself and even published an essay about it in a minor Polish magazine. Isn't this what BLP should prevent? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't like "personal" comments either, but some of these sources are really very bad (Gontarczyk? Really?), and most (if not all) of the criticisms are backed by sources. If we have some sources criticizing another potential sources, what are we supposed to do, ignore them? VM is trying to get Icewhiz sanctioned for merely discussing sources. François Robere (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz has misrepresented sources and disrupted discussions with irrelevancies

2) Icewhiz has engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by misrepresenting sources and by presenting irrelevant sources to WP:STONEWALL discussions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per , and . In these instances Icewhiz brings up some far-right or anti-semitic individuals or organizations and falsely pretends that the dispute is over their nature. In none of these is that the case. The dispute is about something different but Icewhiz uses these red herrings to distract, deflect and misrepresent. He also does this to insinuate false things about other editors, but that is probably dealt best separately. Note that these are just a small sample of the overall problem due to word limits on evidence and that these do not include the misrepresentations already mention in the FoF above concerning attacks on BLPs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The following are particularly egregious: (makes claims about alleged censorship in Poland, but uses a source about censorship in Russia), (pretends dispute is over whether a story is legendary or factual, actual dispute is about how the legend is portrayed in literature) (claims interview by Antony Polonsky is not by Polonsky. At first he actually claimed that the interview could have been faked, he then backed off and "only" insisted it wasn't by Polonsky but by the interviewer. This after advocating for using Polonsky on talk), (pretends dispute is over funding over organization, actual dispute is over uniqueness of organization. Blind revert)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

• RS-101: We prefer Polonsky's academic book (English), with a few pages of coverage, over a passing sentence (out of context... "the same applies...") in a non-English interview by Piotr Zychowicz (author of Pact Ribbentrop - Beck). See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Response: Icewhiz - chance to clarify strange claim for fuller analysis and quotes of source. This use of non-English media (in this case media with a few question marks) - reverting out published scholarship in English is a recurring issue with VM - e.g. diff where VM removes peer reviewed journal articles in English and replaces them with Polish media and a nationalist NGO.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Media sources - there is a big difference between using a media source (non-English and borderline reliable to boot) - on historical subjects (e.g. events in 1944) - and using media sources on current subjects. Note also that interviews/opeds with/by subjects of articles differ as well (and are also current). For current events - e.g. events within the last five years - often media is the best source available. For events farther back in time - scholarship is usually available and is much better as a source.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

1968 Polish political crisis is a historical subject so your excuse doesn't hold water.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

We can use both you know? There's two problems here:

1. You are cherry picking WHICH Polonsky we're allowed to use. Why? One statement from Polonsky fits your POV. The other statement from Polonsky doesn't. That's the very definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS
2. You pretended that the source WASN'T Polonsky. At first you suggested the interview was faked, which is absurd. When that was shown to be obviously false you began attacking... the interviewer. As if that had anything to do with what Polonsky said (in addition to being another BLP vio from you).

An additional problem is right in your comment above. You, once again, lie about my edits and try to use them as a DEFLECTION. I restored a previous version which had consensus after you made changes which didn't. And ... this has NOTHING to do with Polonsky. So you're kind of proving my point here - you're WP:STONEWALLING the discussion and derailing it. "Oh look over here! SQUIRRELLL!!!!" Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's actually kind of hilarious - in a sad kind of way - that in a Proposed Finding of Fact which says you attempt to derail discussions with irrelevant diffs you show up and... attempt to derail the discussion with irrelevant diffs. There's a potential for some space-time continuum destroying feedback loop here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And User:Icewhiz, please drop this whole "use of non-English media" hypocrisy. YOU yourself have used PLENTY of "non-English media", some of very very very low quality, yourself, when it suited your purpose. Do I really need to bring this diff out again? (prawy.pl - anti-semitic website, fronda.pl - right wing magazine, pch24.pl - right wing Catholic source (which also makes your complaints about and attempts to remove "Catholic" sources look hypocritical, tysol.pl - not reliable Polish media) You've also used this source (conservative magazine - maybe RS?) When other users use reliable Polish media sources written by historians you scream to high heavens about "use of non-English media" (and attack the authors). Then when it fits in with the narrative you're trying to push you turn around and use junkety unreliable Polish sources. How the hey does that work? Wanna explain that one? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• (!) - Yes, this is one of comments by Icewhiz which gave me a pause. It shows that Icewhiz either has an extreme anti-Polish bias (if he believes in the nonsense he is telling) or is trying to intentionally offend/bait another contributor (if he does not). First of all, he tells that "Russia has very similar legislation to Poland in this regard" and gives this ref: . But the reference does not say it. Of course it does not say it because the situations with the freedom of speech in Poland in Russia are very very different (See all the List of websites blocked in Russia, Federal List of Extremist Materials in Russia, Internet censorship in Russia, List of journalists killed in Russia and so on and so on). In essence, Icewhiz wants to dismiss all "Polish" sources (this is an extreme POV-pushing) by referring to problems existing in very different countries, such as Russia, Iran and even North Korea . My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• While the comparison is his own, the apprehensions are not, as you can see in another HRW report. Suggesting a law that penalizes certain expressions will have a "chilling effect" on the freedom of speech is not far fetched - that's usually the purpose of such laws... François Robere (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz has violated WP:CIVIL by engaging in WP:BAITing

3) Icewhiz has made provocative and vexing unsourced comments on talk in an effort to WP:BAIT other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per . Note that this FoF does NOT concern the false insinuations and personal attacks directed at other editors but the general comments he's made which have created a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere and which were intended to vex other editors.

He's ran the gamut here from falsely insinuating that it's illegal to edit Polish Wikipedia on Polish-Jewish topics, to comparing freedom of press in Poland to North Korea and Iran (despite the fact that according to his own source Poland has a higher freedom rating in this regard than Israel and about the same as the United States), to trying to "prove" there's censorship in Poland by citing sources about Russia instead, to comparing anti-Nazi resistance fighters to Nazis, by speaking approvingly of anti-Polish comments and edits by sock puppets of banned neo-Nazi user(s), to trivializing and jeering at Nazi crimes against Poles. Anyone of these is by itself a very serious violation, but he's really piled it on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of issues in this FoF proposal and comments above:

1. WP:BAIT is an essay that specifically suggests editors "Don't take the bait" - so that they won't get sanctioned under the civility policy.
2. VM is making allegations - - regarding "sock puppets of banned neo-Nazi user(s)" - without any evidence to back up that said IP/editors are indeed sockpuppets, their alleged "neo-Nazi" nature, or for that matter - my awareness of any of the above. These are WP:ASPERSIONS towards me and said editors (IPs or registered) - very serious ones - and unless Volunteer Marek can back them up with iron-clad evidence (that said IPs/editors were sockpuppets, "neo-Nazis", as well as my awareness of such) - this sort of comment is sanctionable (I will note I had a few other such socking aspersions in early versions of my evidence - but as part of a diff pare down (to meet diff limits in evidence) - I removed PAs not towards myself).
3. In saying he was "baited", this seems to be a self-admission by VM of violating the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policy.
4. I've actually analyzed each and every personal attack I've introduced into evidence. VM wasn't baited - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#BAIT? Context of personal attacks by Volunteer Marek - if you look at the context of the reported diffs, VM seems to be objecting to quotations from academic sources, has issues with DUE/RS discussions, and at other times simply launches personal attacks at random.
5. Conflation of personal and national. Wikipedia does not adhere to "Poland's good name" as as policy. We follow sources. Mentioning assessments by well known historians s - e.g. "Poles killed a maximum 30,000 Germans and between 100,000 to 200,000 Jews.” is not baiting, nor is questioning Polish media reliability on the narrow topic of Holocaust complicity due to the Holocaust law. These aren't personal statements.

Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

1. So what? That doesn't make engaging in BAITing behavior any better. Seriously, if someone accuses you falsely of anti-semitism, any normal decent person will get pissed off and tell the accuser to f**k off. This is how it works and this is how it should work. Can't take stuff like that and let it sit there, precisely because it's just a horrible thing to be accused of (especially when the accuser knows nothing about the person you're accusing and their ethnic background and is doing it explicitly to smear the other person... just to win a freakin' Wikipedia dispute). The problem is with the person making the false allegations, without evidence, or with faked evidence, in the first place.

2. This is just false. I've repeatedly pointed you to the admin - User:Salvio giuliano - who made the indef block of the concerned IP. You could've asked him if you sincerely doubted that this was a sock puppet (or why they were banned). You haven't done so, instead you keep accusing me over and over again of making false allegations of sock puppetry. And you keep defending the edits by these neo-Nazi users.

3. Lol, no. I said *YOU* were "baitING", I didn't say *I* was "baitED" and there's no such admission on my part. You are the (added correction 6/30//19 - VM) Only person who used "baitED" on this page. But hey, thanks for illustrating your manipulative nature here. (Only exception I can see here is my response at the original request for case where you made completely BS awful accusations against me, which frankly, should've gotten you indef banned right there and then, and which I did respond to in strong terms)

4. "I've actually analyzed each and every..." - oooooooohhhhhh. YOU've actually analyzed it. Everything is okay then. We're done here. Icewhiz looked at the evidence against him and has dismissed it. Well, that settles it.

Note also that you're trying to red herring your way here. The diffs you, presumably, "analyzed", are YOUR evidence. Yet you are pretending to be responding to MY evidence. Your evidence sucks and is consists of confabulations (at best) and misrepresentations, but regardless, in no way does it actually address all the actual BAITing that I put in my evidence.

5. Whaa? You're doing that thing again. The thing where you start presenting irrelevancies and sources and pretending the dispute is about something other than it is. NO ONE has said that Wikipedia must "defend Poland's good name". Stop pretending they did. NONE of the examples of your baiting involve any claims about how many Germans or Jews Poles killed. They're all about you saying crazy stuff like comparing Poland to North Korea (I'm sorry but that's not just "questioning Polish media reliability", that's just batshit crazy) or claiming it's illegal to edit Polish wikipedia in Poland on Polish-Jewish topics, or jeering at and minimizing the murders and atrocities that Nazis perpetrated against Poles. THAT was your baiting. Stop pretending it was something else. Red herring. Red herring. Red herring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, Icewhiz's argument here seems to be "yeah I baited him, but hey, he fell for it at least once, so what's the problem?" This is exactly the problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Yes, all these comments by Icewhiz were not good, but the most disturbing are his comments where he implicitly accuses other contributors (even on this page) of supporting or minimizing the antisemitism in Poland during their editing and comments, which promotes very strong and occasionally incivil response from them (e.g. this section of my Evidence). The response is so strong because the accusations are false and because this is probably the worst accusation one can through on a person with progressive anti-racialist views, and VM has such views based on his editing in all subject areas, but especially in the Race&Intelligence and US politics. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know what Icewhiz said or didn't say, but I can tell you "minimizing" Polish antisemitism has been a fixture of this topic area for a while, with false equivalences and victim blaming to top. François Robere (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait, I'm sorry, this is content related, but it's so wrong that I feel compelled to comment. In his charge that there's "minimizing of Polish antisemitism" going on, Francois Robere links to a discussion where he provides as an example the Khmelnytsky Uprising. Wait what??? An uprising by Ukrainian Cossacks, against Poland , whose slogan was "kill all the Jews AND Poles" is an example of ... Polish? antisemitism? When the other user points out his error, Francois Robere stubbornly insists that he's right (because apparently, Khmelnytsky was educated in Poland, so he must be Polish), somehow missing the whole part about Khmelnytsky's Cossacks killing Poles, and claims that "Polish anti-semitism" is being minimized.

This is the "quality" of the evidence here. It's just absurd and completely against reliable sources. When someone writes stuff like this they either lack competency to edit the topic area, or they're being purposefully provocative. There's no third possibility here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

See, I find it so very bizarre that you jump 20 lines down and completely miss the very beginning of that discussion: The conflicts between Jews and Poles were mostly based on the faith disputes and economic issues. Some Poles, for example, being Catholics unfairly blamed Jews for the death of Christs. Some Jews, on the other hand, favored other Jews in business and discriminated Polish traders. The list of this minor conflicts between the Jews and Poles is very long but in general Jews in Poles lived in Poland together in relative peace and harmony for centuries. This all changed on the outbreak of the war What a naive, ignorant view of Polish-Jewish history. "Conflict between Jews and Poles"? In a historically Catholic, eastern European country with only 10% Jews? What kind of a conflict is that? And pretending everything was fine, with no antisemitism whatsoever, until the Nazies arrived? Jews lost all rights because of the Nazi orders and that is when some of the antisemitic elements within the Polish society blossomed. Jewish life was worthless, criminal element further demoralized by the reality of the war took advantage of the situation and committed many crimes against the Jews, rapes and murders. But you need to understand that these people didn't represent Polish society as a whole. Majority of the Poles were rather sympathetic to the Jewish situation, and many actively helped despite the fact that any help was punished by death (imagine that!) Yeah, she actually wrote that. You know, "criminal elements demoralized by the war" is a curious phrase, typical to wartime underground publications. Yes, here on Wikipedia we have editors promoting the same apologia the Polish underground promoted while trying to maintain order in occupied Poland, without actually doing much for about a tenth of its population. So yeah, there's some "minimization" of antisemitism going on around here, and you not noticing it at all - this "cherry picking" of sorts, where out of five links you pick something that's completely irrelevant to the point I was making - is as telling as anything. François Robere (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"the same apologia the Polish underground promoted while trying to maintain order in occupied Poland, without actually doing much for about a tenth of its population"

The above statement unfortunately is indictative of the battleground behavior of FR and Icewhiz-no matter what topic they engage with Polish users, their aim seems to be maximizing allegations of Poland wronging Jews, leading to such hyberpole statements as above, completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.As mentioned previously if someone is on moral crusade on Wikipedia than it doesn't create good atmosphere for cooperation and reliable sourcing.Never mind the absurdity of claiming Polish underground in German occupied Poland, had any resources to "maintain order" while fighting for survival.Unfortunately such statements completely disconnected with reality of Second World War are commonplace when discussing topics with FR and Icewhiz.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I know it's tempting to attack on every possible instant, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't go off topic like that with no diffs. We were discussing bias, so some subject matter was due; if you want the sources to back it up - be my guest - I added them myself at Home Army many months ago (again, you're welcome to compare the current revision with that from a year ago and see if there's anything missing). You're of course welcome to reply on-topic if you want... François Robere (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz has engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by WP:GAMEing Arbitration Enforcement (WP:AE)

4) Icewhiz has inflamed the atmosphere in the topic area by trying to "win" disagreements by seeking sanctions against other editors rather than making a good faith effort to resolve disputes on talk

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per . In the past two years Icewhiz has participated (and probably filed) in more WP:AE reports than any other user in Wikipedia. This may actually be true overall, since 2009. He's been involved in about one and a half WP:AE reports PER MONTH. This does encompass both Eastern Europe and Israeli-Palestinian topics but since his behavior is very similar in both areas and has resulted in very similar problems, this illustrates exactly the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS approach he takes to editing.

About two-thirds of the WP:AE reports involving Icewhiz have been closed "against him" (in disagreement with what he was advocating). This evidences the spurious nature of most of his reports and comments.

The Committee and Wikipedia as a whole really needs to do something about BATTLEGROUND-users weaponizing discretionary sanctions and AE in their POV wars, rather than working to compromise and obtain consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not entered into evidence. I commented in the workshop section on a number of misrepresentations in VM's table - and there are more. VM also seems to be counting cases I commented on, often in passing. Most of the cases I have actually filed had merit - closing either with a warning or sanction against the reported party.Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem. You've made tons of allegations that are not in your evidence. In fact, there isn't much in your evidence at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(and yes, I'm counting cases you've commented on, as I state explicitly. Your comments most often were NOT "in passing" but rather they were a sort of free-riding of "hey admins, while this AE is open can you ban these users I dont like too?" or explicit and stubborn support for either the filer or subject).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do think this is a serious issue for ArbCom to consider. I concur there is a problem on two fronts - first, an attempt to use AE as a way to win content disputes, and second, a bias on the part of at least one regular AE admin in dealing with EE-related topics, a bias that has existed for a decade in not more. That said, I think addressing this properly would necessitate making said admin a party to this (thus opening a new can of worms that nobody is likely looking fwd too), and probably an entirely new ArbCom (ditto). Therefore I expect this to be either ignored, or result in a topic ban from AE, which probably could achieve almost the same stabilizing effect without expanding this to other parties. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, AE is not at the core of the problem, nor are Icewhiz's appeals to AE against Policy. If you take away AE you do two things: a) declare AE access is limited (where's the policy justification for that?); b) take away one editor's ability to defend themselves against PA/ASPERSIONS; and c) by extension, encourage offending editors to continue offending, knowing that AE isn't watching. None of this is justifiable without examining the appeals themselves and/or explaining how undue appeals were "won" by Icewhiz 57% of the time. As for Sandstein, I again note that that they ruled on about half the cases, with the average admin ruled on a tenth of that (~2.5 cases); statistically speaking, there's no way to draw conclusions on "Sandstein vs. the rest" at this granularity, so the insinuation that they're biased is undue. François Robere (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz has made explicit and implicit accusations against other editors unsupported by evidence

5) Icewhiz has made several very serious accusations and insinuations regarding Holocaust and anti-semitism. The serious nature of such accusations normally requires that they are supported by evidence which Icewhiz has failed to provide.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Icewhiz has made very vile accusations against me on several occasions:

1. On his Requests/Case statement Icewhiz wrote about a "minority that advocates Holocaust denial/distortion". He put my name in his statement clearly insinuating that this is something I was guilty of. In the most charitable explanation possible he meant that to apply to other users he mentioned and not to me. However he did not clarify this when offered a chance. He has provided ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence to support this charge. Making accusations like that without evidence is normally grounds for an WP:INDEF ban until the user realizes that you can't just falsely accuse other editors like that. Indeed, user Yanniv, who often reverted in support of Icewhiz was indef banned for less than this.
2. In the same Requests/Case statement Icewhiz claimed "VM has been reverting and stonewalling corrections." (of Icewhiz's reverts of User Poeticbent). If you actually look through the evidence there's nothing in there that shows this. Whatever problems Icewhiz has/had with Poeticbent I wasn't part of it. A quick look at the edit history of, say, Szczuczyn Pogrom or Bialystok Ghetto (you can search for my username in "Isolate history") shows this clearly. Icewhiz managed to get this case opened under false pretenses.
3. In his Evidence, in a section titled "Volunteer Marek / Jews" Icewhiz wrote: "The NSZ is known as antisemitic,[1][2] killing many Jews [3]". This makes it appear as if I disagreed with these statements. I do not and never have. This is simply underhanded insinuation. Icewhiz's actual diff is about... the proper way to name somebody (should their nom de guerre be included) and whether the person should be described as a "former Jew" (Icewhiz preference) or "of Jewish background". I've reverted other users who've tried to white wash this organization myself .
4. In this comment at AE Icewhiz accused me of "Jew marking". What really happened? Icewhiz blanked an article . I restored it . Somewhere in the restored text there was a mention of the subject's ethnicity. Icewhiz never said he had an issue with that. But as soon as I undid his blanking he went running to AE claiming that because the person's ethnicity was part of the 8579 ks of text I restored I was "Jew marking", an allusion perhaps to the Triple parentheses. He then repeated this nonsense here and .

Bottomline is that if there was ANY evidence to support Icewhiz's false accusations he would have shown it to us by now. He's looked through every single of my contributions going back at least ten years and he's found nothing. I mean, his evidence is basically some stuff about "VM failed to V a source" (regarding a dispute over what part of a source should be used) and "VM was uncivil after I falsely accused him of some horrible things". So instead he restored to *insinuating* wrong doing. But just because he's trying to be sneaky about it and trying to retain "plausible deniability" regarding his personal attacks that doesn't make them any less atrocious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

1. The paragraph does not address VM. I have repeatedly stated this - including at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#mini-Rebuttal
2. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes (2.2, 4) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: Verification
3. Not in final version, and general intro statement on what the NSZ was - which is relevant background/context. The intro sentence said nothing on VM and was general background only.
4. I did not blank an article - I left a stub after reverting a sock's edit in a clearly marked edit summary (listing several issue - including MOS, and V - e.g. "Romkowski himself taught Różański everything about torture" is not in the cited source, significant chunks of content sourced to a long dead website which makes verification difficult)). WP:REVERTBAN applies to the edit, and VM is responsible for the content he restored - which includes Jew-marking - "was a Polish communist official of Jewish background trained by Comintern in Moscow" in the first lede sentence. This is actually a very bad edit by VM. I dropped this from my case evidence as this was a single revert (even though the provision in WP:PROXYING: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content" would seem to apply) - performed near the Straw that broke the camel's back that led to AE . However - VM is responsible for placing that language.

I have avoiding labeling any of VM's actions. However ARBCOM should apply the technically appropriate label to an editor that advocates that Polish-Jews should not be described using the adjective Polish in the lede as done here by VM, and acted upon (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#Volunteer Marek's editing on Polish Jews and antisemitism). That such editing takes place on Wikipedia should be of deep concern - and editors engaged in such editing should be called out.Icewhiz (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What is this "technically appropriate label" Icewhiz? Come on. Have the guts to say it. You're making another odious insinuation but are trying to be sneaky about it.

And as pointed out over and over and over (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) again I ***never*** said or advocated anything like "Polish-Jews should not be described using the adjective Polish in the lede". You. Are. Simply. Lying. What I said is that in one particular instance the info that he was Polish was redundant because it was already in the rest of the sentence. The fact that you twisted this to mean something else, and that you keep bringing it up over and over and over again despite the fact that it's been explained repeatedly (which you fail to even acknowledge) just reveals your own duplicity.

You know what is of "deep concern" and what kind of editing should not take place on Wikipedia? Somebody running around lying about other editors in an attempt to smear them like you've done repeatedly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree, many comments by Icewhiz qualify as WP:Aspersions. He frequently makes such claims implicitly, but the intended target understands what Icewhiz means, so this is not an excuse. My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Anything in particular, or just broad, general agreement as before? François Robere (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I made such section in my Evidence , but there is also a section on this page . And thank you for clarifying that Icewhiz and you accuse VM of supporting views by Nazi they used to exterminate Jews , I could not even imagine such thing (see my text underlined at the bottom of the thread). Needless to say, the accusation is nonsense. My very best wishes (talk)

As I already said - I'm not playing your game. Good luck. François Robere (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek

1) Icewhiz is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing Volunteer Marek anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per , FoFs: and

See also <-- Another completely disgusting insinuation against me where Icewhiz claims that I have "commented on the characteristics of Jewish editors". There's NOT A SINGLE diff supporting this. This is just a straight up smear. NONE of the "evidence" Icewhiz includes show anything of the sort, nor do they show any even remotely problematic edits relating to "Jews" (sic). This is simply fucked up that he's allowed to do this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a mild remedy to an ongoing problem with Icewhiz making unsupported false allegations against Volunteer Marek (me). The horrible accusations are worth a WP:INDEF so this is Icewhiz getting off easy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Playing the victim when you haven't even bothered to retract or apologize for your false accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Victim blaming at its purest. VM has hounded me and hurled multiple insults at me since Nov 2018. I refer also to my reply at the FoF.Icewhiz (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  While I feel it is unfortunate VM feels he is falsely accused, I did provide evidence and clarified that the opening paragraph in the initial request did not refer to VM - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#mini-Rebuttal (and on the workshop as well).Icewhiz (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  I provided evidence for the many assertions I did make. In regards to assertions I did not make - I stated that a paragraph that did not refer to VM, and was removed from VM by a few paragraphs - was unrelated to VM - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#mini-Rebuttal. Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh nonsense. You just doubled down on your disgusting accusations here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

So which one was it? "Provide evidence" for the false accusation you made, or "clarified that it did not refer to" me? You can't have both.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that while this is outside the topic area, the situation here in many respects resembles what happened between User:Icewhiz and User:Malik Shabazz. Malik had been editing since 2006, almost as long as I have. And Malik, who is Jewish, was one of the first editors to raise the alarm about Icewhiz, both regarding their actions in Israel-Palestine topic area (note Icewhiz's BLP violation even back then) and in regard to Poland . As a result Icewhiz began following Malik around, filing AE reports against him and trying to provoke him, all the while of course trying to play the victim. At one point Icewhiz even tried to secretly (by privately emailing Sandstein) get Malik sanctioned for an alleged topic ban violation involving edits made... before the topic ban was actually placed (Malik's topic ban from I-P was placed on him on May 23 2018, Icewhiz tried to get him banned for edits made on May 12 2018) (a pretty good example of how Icewhiz operates and the level of honesty he brings to the Wikipedia). After continued baiting and baiting and baiting and baiting by Icewhiz, Malik finally lost his temper and told Icewhiz off in no uncertain terms. Icewhiz's tactic worked and Malik got a block. Pissed off, he left Wikipedia after more than twelve years. Icewhiz drove him off.

Now, yeah, Malik over stepped. But this was after having to put up with so much crap from Icewhiz, who was never held accountable for his actions, that it's no wonder he left. Since his tactic was successful the last time, he's trying to use it again here, by likewise making extremely offensive provocative claims and hoping he can get somebody (me) sanctioned for their response. How many long time editors is Icewhiz gonna drive off the project before somebody does something about it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per my comments above, I don't think a 1-way interaction ban will suffice, or be seen as fair. It's likely going to be 2-ways or no-way... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz one year ban from Poland related BLPs

2) Icewhiz is banned for one year from any articles about living or recently deceased persons (BLPs) relating to Poland. He may still discuss BLPs on talk pages but is reminded that WP:BLP needs to be followed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per . In particular, falsifying a source to claim a living person said something negative about "American Jews" when the subject did no such thing is another instance of an edit that would normally earn an WP:INDEF block, so this too is Icewhiz getting off easy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a minimal proposal to make sure that WP:BLP in this topic area is observed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I refer to my response in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#mini-Rebuttal and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop#Icewhiz has made numerous BLP violations regarding academics and scholars.Icewhiz (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Still haven't explained where you got "American Jews" from in the WP:HOAX you created.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with that for the reasons already explained above: , . My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with this proposal. Banning Icewhiz would be punishing a good editor for doing what a good editor does (even though another camp does not agree with their edits). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not at all about challenging sources, but about actual editing of multiple BLP pages by Icewhiz to "prove" that the scientific work and publications by the subjects were bad, as shown here . My very best wishes (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably would be sufficient to restrict it to Polish-Jewish related BLPs? And could be made even narrower, as in, a ban from lead section of such articles as long as they have one? I find the diffs related to expansion of criticism section of the articles mostly justifiable, my concern has been and still is with the undue negative criticism in lead and on article's talk. But I don't think BLP is really concerned with what people say about BLPs on article's talk (but do correct me if I am wrong). Through the latter is related to the battleground aspects, as in, trying to prejudice neutral editors by labelling sources used by other side as far-right, etc. This should be addressed somehow as well, but again, I am not sure if this is a BLP issue? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

VM's strongest case is the one regarding MJC, and that's been discussed... multiple times. Ideally, Icewhiz would only get a warning for that, seeing as it's not recurrent, wasn't fought over (cf. Bella and Tatzref), and has some explanation. As for talk: I understand your reservations, but a) some of those sources really are very bad; b) Icewhiz's criticisms, if harsh, are typically carefully-worded and backed by sources (ie not "right wing nutter", but "SPLC-profiled right wing activist"); and c) anyone is free to present contradictory evidence as they please. In general, if sourcing wasn't so bad in this topic area (something also noted by Ealdgyth more than once ) we'd have far fewer criticisms of this sort. François Robere (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz one year ban from WP:AE in topics related to Eastern Europe

3) Icewhiz is banned for one year from filing or commenting upon any reports to WP:AE concerning the topic of Eastern Europe unless he is the subject of the report or as a response to being mentioned by another user in the report.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per and also and

Icewhiz's unwillingness to work with others and attempt to get consensus for his edits on contentious articles is partly the result of him relying on and weaponizing WP:AE in his pursuit of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Removing the incentive to bait other editors and then go running to WP:AE would provide for a better editing environment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Muzzling the victim. I have in fact held off for a long while from filing an AE against VM. I asked them to stop on December 2018, April 2019. As evident in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek's harrassment of Icewhiz I did not go to AE on the 1st insult, nor on the 10th. I did go after more than half a year of this (following two weeks in which VM chose to follow me to ~38 articles). So no - I have not been running to AE (in which most of my EE reports resulted in sanctions, a warning, or were deemed too complex for AE). There is no basis for this sanction - and it would enable harrassment and personal attacks at impunity.Icewhiz (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm the victim! See how that works? A "victim" doesn't file Requests for ArbCom case (then complain that the case was accepted when it starts looking not so good for them) by opening it up with false disgusting accusations against other parties.

And it's funny you bring up that comment from December 2018. Here is my response. This was you coming to harass me on my talk page AFTER you've been asked to stay away. Some victim.

And yeah the claim that you waited until December 2018 to go running to WP:AE is false . Heck, in April 2018 you filed TWO reports and then another one in early May. Two of these were closed as no action so the claim that "most... resulted in sanctions" also doesn't water (although maybe the "too complex for AE" part is true).

And the only reason you didn't go to WP:AE against me (you did against others) is because I hadn't done anything wrong. Now you're trying to turn this upside down and use it against me??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Option above (Poland related BLPs) would be better. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: In re: “[Icewhiz]'s had some success, particularly because of one particular admin [Sanstein], who, unlike other admins there, has been very favorable to him.” , it does not appear that you've notified Sandstein that you are discussing his AE actions in the context of this case. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The comment by VM was about "Icewhiz at WP:AE", not about Sandstein or any other admins who also appear in his comment. So, I do not think any notifications would be required. The discussion on this page is already too large and convoluted. It would not be helpful to make it even bigger by bringing more people, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said in numerous places, I hope this ArbCom will not end up topic banning anyone. However, I meant topic banned from articles. As for a ban from AE, I think this is in this case very justifiable per evidence presented. I concur that there has been way too much in the way of trying to get a (friendly?) admin to enforce a sanction on one content opponents. This certainly needs to stop, and this is likely the easiest way of achieving it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I like how limited this is. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Involved editors to develop a set of sourcing guidelines

4) The editors involved in this dispute are directed to work together to develop a dedicated guideline to the best-practice use of sources in this topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is an attempt to try to make something positive out of this mess, although I'm not sure if it should be a "Remedy" or something else. There was some really good discussion on User:Paul Siebert's (who commented but did not participate here extensively) talk page and he should get credit for this constructive proposal, unfortunately, to put it in polite terms, the very existence of this case ended up derailing that discussion. This would resurrect it and the dialogue would continue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Icewhiz topic banned from topics related to Poland for one year

5) Icewhiz is topic banned for one year from making edits related to the topic of Poland, broadly construed

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per

.

Icewhiz has shown repeatedly that he is unable to work constructively with others in this topic area. He has repeatedly made remarks about editors, sources and text based on their ethnicity. He has made outlandish claims about Poland and Poles. He has used dubious sources, including anti-semitic ones, to attack BLPs of both Polish and non-Polish historians who are experts in this topic area. He has made provocative remarks which appear to be intended to bait other editors, including those which trivialized Nazi crimes against Poles.

More seriously, Icewhiz has shown repeatedly that he is unable to interact with Polish editors without resorting to making false and defamatory accusations about them without evidence, for example here here and here.

There's literally half a dozen edits and comments given here each one of these merits an WP:INDEF ban from Wikipedia. A one year topic ban gives Icewhiz a chance to rethink their approach to editing this topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have made no comments on editors based on their ethnicity. I have challenged Polish language media sources on the grounds of post-2018 media censorship on the narrow topic of Holocaust complicity (an issue discussed by RSes: , , ). I have also challenged the DUEness/weighting (oddly - used quite a bit on the English Wikipedia) of "the narrative of Judeo-communism constitutes a premise for historical thinking characteristic of the new ethnonationalistic or 'monumental' historiography claiming to defend the good name of Poland. Its leading representatives are Marek J. Chodakiewicz, Piotr Gontarczyk, Leszek Zebrowski, Bogdan Musial, the late Tomasz Strzembosz, Igor Cyprian Pogonowksi and Krzysztof Jasiewicz".(page 118), as well as use of these authors when they are self-published (e.g. blogs, op-eds, self-published books). Conversely - I have suggested we use the Polish Wikipedia as a POV guide (e.g. ), and have introduced works by Polish scholars belonging to other schools of thought (oddly omitted from Wikipedia articles, perhaps since VM has viewed some of these as: "full of anti-Polish cliches and stereotypes"). Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

" I have challenged Polish language media sources on the grounds of post-2018 media censorship ...." annnndddd also compared Poland to North Korea and Iran, tried to "prove" there's censorship in Poland by presenting sources which were actually about Russia, and claimed it might be illegal to edit Polish Wikipedia on Polish-Jewish topic (there is no post-2018 media censorship - Icewhiz is repeating a false claim as if it was true)

"I have also challenged the DUEness/weighting ..." - no, this wasn't challaenging any "DUEness/weighting", this was outright removal and attempts to unilaterally ban ANY sources which don't fit Icewhiz's POV narrative.

"as well as use of these authors when they are self-published" - except NONE of the authors enumerated have "self-published" (maybe Pogonowski? I don't know, no one cares because no one wants to use him anyway). There might have been some OTHER authors that were self-published that Icewhiz removed, but in those cases no one objected.

"I have suggested we use the Polish Wikipedia as a POV guide" - on article that haven't actually been disputed. If Polish Wikipedia is so great, why don't we use Zbrodnia w Koniuchach or Zbrodnia w Nalibokach? Or adopt Polish Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing?

"have introduced works by Polish scholars belonging to other schools of thought" - ah yes. "There are some good ones". "Some of my best friends are."

"oddly omitted from Wikipedia articles, perhaps since VM has viewed some of these" - not even sure what this insinuation is suppose to mean. Par for the course.

It's telling that Icewhiz doesn't even try and address the charge that he has "repeatedly made remarks about (...) sources and text based on their ethnicity", since the evidence in that regard is overwhelming. He only tries to claim that he hasn't made remarks about editors in that way, which is not really true except maybe for the fact that he usually insinuates it rather than states it directly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

While Icewhiz undeniably has problems with editing and discussing subjects related to Poland, I think his problems are worse: he unfairly accuses others of antisemitism without a shred of actual evidence (my comment), while his own views can be reasonably interpreted as anti-Jewish, i.e. directed against non-religious Jews or those who converted to another religion (my comment). My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that Icewhiz's approach to challenging sources has been civil and within policy. Moreover, I don't see any PAs by Icewhiz; but I do see them on VMs edits. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said in numerous places, I hope this ArbCom will not end up topic banning anyone (from content areas). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz topic banned from articles related to Poland for one year

5) Icewhiz is topic banned for one year from making edits to articles related to Poland, broadly construed, but he may still make suggestions on talk pages and participate in discussions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per

.

This is a milder version of the above (I'm scraping out the AGF barrel here for all that's left in it). It accommodates the fact that Icewhiz did make some legitimate edits and identified and removed some unreliable sources from some articles (mostly ones I did not edit). Under this sanction he would still be able to do that but it would prevent him from turning the topic area into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and he would be forced to seek WP:CONSENSUS. Ideally this remedy would be combined with the WP:AE restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I refer to my responses to the proposals above. The evidence here (carpet bag of links) consists of VM taking issue with evidence in this case, and VM and other editors taking issue with quotations from mainstream scholarship on Polish history, while promoting sources (often in Polish language media) that are either not mainstream or at the extreme edges of scholarship in the field.^[1]Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The evidence clearly shows a pattern of violating BLP, misrepresenting sources, provoking other editors, making outlandish claims about Poland and Poles, and in one case even creating an outright WP:HOAX by fabricating a quote for a BLP to attack an author. Icewhiz's link is both cherry picked and irrelevant since - even IF it was true - it cannot excuse the sanctionable conduct enumerate here. As I said before, creating WP:HOAXes about BLPs, or making false horrible accusations against other editors usually results in WP:INDEF blocks, so this is actually an extremely mild restriction on Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Quoting mainstream scholars is not a provocation, nor is challenging on talk pages the DUEness/balance of sources - e.g. Davies' tenure issues in regards to his writings on Polish Jews is not a BLP vio. You ought to be careful in bandying about WP:HOAX - as the evidence in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes (2.2, 4) shows you restoring dubious content not supported/contradicted by the cited sources.. Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Quoting mainstream scholars is not provocation" - Except that's not what the diffs and evidence are about. You're trying to derail with irrelevancies again. What IS a provocation is comparing Poland to Iran and North Korea, and making false accusations against other editors without evidence. Your accusations against me here is likewise an attempt at deflecting attention from the fact that you used an anti-semitic source to fabricate a quote in order to smear a BLP. You STILL haven't explained that one adequately.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It is unclear why comparing one country to another would be a provocation - however I did not compare Poland to North Korea. I compared media freedom on the very narrow issue of Holocaust complicity (per the "Holocaust law"^[2]) to media freedom in regards to the respective Supreme leaders. In retrospect this wasn't the best comparison (as the penalties in Iran and NK are much harsher), so I modified my comparison in the thread to Russia which has a very similar law on the books (with a similar punishment) - a connection made by others.^[3][4] The English Wikipedia is not a Polish good name committee. Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

" It is unclear why comparing one country to another would be a provocation - however I did not compare Poland to North Korea. I compared media freedom..." - LOL. Whatever. Diffs speak for themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Case goes beyond the current title

The case goes beyod the single issue of antisemitism, and concerns issues such as genocide of Poles by Nazi Germany, Soviet occupation and MOS:Ethnicity among others.As such it should be renamed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Icewhiz has engaged in battleground behavior and mentality

Throughout the evidence it is clear that Icewhiz is engaged in edits dictated by uncompromising stance and is unwilling to compromise with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Icewhiz has expressed ethnic based prejudice while editing Wikipedia

From comments about Polish media being used as source, to comparing Poland to Iran, North Korea, constantly claiming that Polish sources are unreliable, comparing Poland to Nazi Germany, and Polish resistance to Nazis, to claiming that occupation of Poland in Second World War is Polish nationalist POV and so forth, it is clear that there is a stance where sources and information is judged on basis of ethnic criteria rather than objective value.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Discussing Polish media reliability, on the narrow topic of Holocaust complicit, in light of the 2018 Holocaust law is not ethnic prejudice. As for "occupation of Poland" - while Warsaw is clearly occupied Poland, describing areas in modern day Ukraine and Belarus, annexed in 1939, as being occupied Poland in 1941-5 - is quite controversial. See Milhist discussion. I will note that the PolishWiki (e.g. vs. ) - often does not describe these locations as Polish. Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

In regards to "comparing Poland to Nazi Germany" - In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Equalizing Poland with Nazi Germany MyMoloboaccount takes issue with a talk page mention of this assessment, as well as Jan T. Gross: "Poles killed a maximum 30,000 Germans and between 100,000 to 200,000 Jews". - mentioning these assessments by historians on a talk page is not "ethnic based prejudice". Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Icewhiz has engaged in Wikihounding

The most controversial of Icewhiz's edits happened when he lost arguments or nominations to DYK articles.After this happened Icewhiz went on wide spree on Polish related articles entering highly controversial claims or straight ahead blanking whole articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If some editor(s) happen to be watching my edits, me editing "Polish related articles" is not wikiHounding of said editor(s)! Quite the opposite.Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not "blanked" articles. I did roll revert two blocked sockpuppet edits returning the articles to stubs - in both cases there were serious issues in the content (e.g. a clearly unreliable source or information that failed V). It unclear how editing (and creating) Poland related article constitutes "Wikihounding" of Volunteer Marek who had not edited said articles previously (or edited them a long time ago) - see User:Icewhiz/hounding. Most information I added to articles came from top-notch sources.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Roman Romkowski was not "blanked" - a blocked sockpuppet (Stawiski - who had misrepresented sources elsewhere - e.g. here - Ellman - discussed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Ealdgyth) edit was reverted per "mostly added by blocked sock. A number of NPOV, MOS, V, and SYNTH issues" leaving a stub. Half the article is unrelated SYNTH. Some information fails V - e.g. "Romkowski himself taught Różański everything about torture" does not appear in the inline citation - Night voices: heard in the shadow of Hitler and Stalin by Heather Laskey. We generally do not trust sockpuppets to accurately represent sources (see WP:BANREVERT) - and in this case the revert was performed only after an attempt of verification - that failed. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You have blanked an article here for example removing such reliable sources as

• Tadeusz Piotrowski Poland's holocaust McFarland, 1998. ISBN 0-7864-0371-3,
• A. Kemp-Welch, Poland under Communism: a Cold War history,Cambridge University Press, 2008. ISBN 0-521-71117-7,
• Leszek Wlodzimierz Gluchowski (1991). "The Collapse of Stalinist Rule in Poland". University of Cambridge, King's College Faculty of Social and Political Sciences
• "Poland's New Chief", LIFE Magazine, 26 November 1956.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Community needs to clarify better MOS:Ethnicity

At the moment it isn't clear what type of descriptions are allowed to clearly describe complex identities in Central European/Eastern European topics, especially in context of 19th century and Second World War history.Wikipedia is edited by editors from many national and cultural backgrounds-there might be some cultural miscommunication/clash on what to consider the best description of nationality/ethnicity in places with very detailed and complex history of inter-ethnic relations.These edits are not necessarily expression of ill will, but better guidance would be welcomed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Icewhiz is in conflict with several editors indicating inability to work with others

I could understand if two editors are in conflict with each other but in this case Icewhiz gets in conflict with any Polish user that he comes across on Wikipedia.Even those who strived hard to reach some kind of compromise and cooperation like Piotrus have eventually been attacked by Icewhiz.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not in evidence - I have worked with several Polish editors. As for the state of topic area - I refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Icewhiz identified problematic content & sourcing. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually the editor who tried very hard to work together with you was Piotrus, the end result was you engaging in conflict with him and trying to add him as a party here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Some of us try to be so accurate with these things (eg. "editors who promote conservative Polish narratives"), and then you see this: any Polish user that he comes across on Wikipedia... Well, what can you do. François Robere (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This does not seem like the right section for this. Arbcom is not a singular person..? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here - well, what Molobo says in his comment is correct. I do believe I have tried to work with Icewhiz (I still do), and it was an unwelcome surprise when he started to present evidence against me. I am still willing to work constructively with Icewhiz, but I do believe he should be admonished for such attitude, which serves little purpose but to antagonize other editors, and to promote battleground mentality by suggesting that if one disagrees with Icewhiz, he will sooner or later try to get you sanctioned. This is not how we make this a friendly editing environment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that require questioning, as well as some introspection. I encourage you and Icewhiz to straighten that out among yourselves. François Robere (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz has engaged in POV-pushing and Tendentious editing

Throughout his edits Icewhiz has presented cherry picked information and sources to present extreme claims and statements(Poles=mass murderers of Jews, Poland is equal to Nazi Germany,Poles mass murdered 200,000 Jews). These statements were selected to present the most extreme statements regarding Jewish-Polish history. Even in cases where source later distanced itself from extreme claims(like Grabowski retreating from claim of 200,000 Jews murdered by Poles), Icewhiz continued to add this information, knowning fully that is no longer supported by source, and even dismissing Grabowski's statement as "Polish media report". This example shows that the user was interested in provoking and causing controversy by carefully selecting the most controversial material to be presented on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Peer reviewed research (and award winning) by Jan Grabowski (historian) is not "extreme" - while contested by some circles inside Poland, this work has wide acceptance in academia. Nor is Hagen, William W. "Before the" final solution": Toward a comparative analysis of political anti-Semitism in interwar Germany and Poland." The Journal of Modern History 68.2 (1996): 351-381. - by William W. Hagen in the The Journal of Modern History extreme. Contrast these sources - with self-published Mark Paul (known for "ignoble ungrateful Jew" myth or Ewa Kurek known for far-right discourse and distortion) - which a year ago were used in hundreds of articles. See also this discussion - - on source self-published by an individual profiled by the SPLC. Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the above comment again reinforces the ethnic bias expressed by Icewhiz and battleground behavior, Grabowski for example has been criticized by Israeli historian Daniel Blatman, yet we of course learn about "circles in Poland". I agree that Hagen isn't extreme, but the claim that Poland was like Nazi Germany is indeed extreme and not a mainstream view, and was pointed out as wrong on discussion page, of which Icewhiz is aware(for example by providing support to Jewish independence movement in Palestine).Unfotunately Icewhiz is unwilling to concede to any of his statement as being in error or controversial. As pointed out earlier, even Grabowski withdrawing from the claim of 200,000 Jews being murdered by Poles was dismissed by Icewhiz as "Polish media report". I do not use Kurek and Mark Paul, and it just seems as another attempt to steer away from the discussion.Sadly if somebody is on crusade to show that Poland=Nazi Germany that indicates a very strong bias and not surprisingly unwillingness to compromise.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If anyone did just that it's you, Molobo. François Robere (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the personal attack you have inserted under that link. I have never wrote "Jews are bad"-that's particularly nasty personal attack from your side.Writing that some organizations in WW1 were pro-German isn't "Jews are bad", neither writing that Poland supported Jewish organizations with money and training is "Jews are bad". This is a serious violation of WP:CIVILITY and AGF here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say you have, that's why it's in quotes. And yeah, there is a problem with all of that: tendentious editing. Your edits from the last year generally follow one of several themes: "good Poles"; "bad Germans, Ukrainians, Russians and Jews"; "Polish territorial losses to Germany and Russia"; "oppression of Poles by occupying German and Russian forces"; "Polish irresponsibility for property restitution"; and "Jan Grabowski and his center are unreliable"; along with those there are some edits on Polish geography, and probably some unrelated edits I haven't noticed. Now, some of these have merit (eg. articles on Nazis, Judenräte and their ilk, or - on the completely opposite end - Righteous Among the Nations), but the fact that you continuously promote these themes of Polish heroism and victimhood - often at the unfortunate expense of other nationalities or ethnicities - makes trusting your work difficult. Add your quick-and-dirty sourcing habits to the mix (Ealdgyth commented on those as well ), and I'm having difficulty not classifying all of it potentially damaging TE/SPA. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Community has discussion on how to better define MOS:Ethnicity

1) Community has discussion on how to better define MOS:Ethnicity in regards to Eastern Europe history, especially in regards to complex identities emerging in 19th century and Second World War. For example on how problematic MOS:Ethnicity is now:should a member of Selbstschutz-a paramilitary organization of German minority in Poland that fought on side Nazi Germany in WW2 be described as Polish in the lead? Should members of Polish Uprising against Germany in 1919 Poznan be described as Germans solely based on their citizenship at the time? I don't want to go into details here, but recent discussions showed that current MOS:Ethnicity is very inadequate in relation to complicated issues in history of Central and Eastern Europe.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Community has discussion on reliable sourcing and avoiding controversial sources

2) Community has discussion on how to improve evaluating sources and to avoid extreme use of sources known to be controversial or pushing forward non-mainstream views on history.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Icewhiz is topic banned from Polish related topics for 6 months

1) Due to heavy battleground behavior and tendentious editing this would be in my view a justifiable cool off period for the editor to rethink his behavior.As Icewhiz is in conflict with almost everyone editing this area, the conflicts he is having are likely to continue unless he changes the behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The conflict is a bit more wide ranging - a group of editors active in this topic area have been opposing myself, and other editors who have attempted to cleanup the sorry state here (which included several hoaxes in main space and widespread dubious source use). Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Icewhiz is warned not to make ethnic based remarks and judgments

Icewhiz is warned not to make ethnic based remarks.Icewhiz is also warned not to push for rejection of sources based on their ethnic/national background.Sources are to be judged on objective criteria.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Poeticbent and his retirement

First, the most constructive thing this ArbCom could do is to review and hopefully rescind, with an apology, the topic ban against User:Poeticbent which caused his retirement. He was the author of 1000+ quality articles including 200+ DYKs, many of them on Polish-Jewish history, like his GA on the Treblinka extermination camp, and also a contributor of helpful infographics like a map of the Holocaust in Poland. See AE where he received his topic ban for a single diff perceived as violating NPA and comments on his talk page. While this ArbCom may or may not issue sanctions against others, it is also high time ArbCom tried to foster a good editing environment by repairing past damage and actively encouraging editors who are here to build the encyclopedia, sending a message that Wikipedia is here for content, not for fighting and flaming. This is also relevant to this case, not only because Poeticbent is listed as a party, but because a prolific content creator, being driven away after having been baited into making a single NPA, is a prime example of the damage done to our community and to the project's overarching mission, when 'remedies' are being handed out in a cowboy fashion without considering the 'big picture'. ArbCom should therefore review the appropriateness of Poeticbent's topic ban in its findings, and consider the pros and cons of an apology to him. While such apologies and outreach are not common practice, precedents are to be set, and I specifically recommended that Wikimedia Foundation creates an outreach program targeting retired, prolific contributors in my peer reviewed paper. If a precedent is set and he returns, recovering a very prolific content creator for the project, it my humble opinion it would mean this ArbCom would have already achieved much, much more than most others. And I wager that you, dear committee members, would probably feel better about your role, too, being remembered as a THE Committee that started the process of actually helping people and saying nice things about them...

Edits promoting battleground mentality

Second. analysis of my evidence. MVBW wrote in his evidence "Icewhiz thinks that others downplay crimes by Poles against Jews and therefore fights back by downplaying crimes committed by Nazi, Soviet NKVD and communists against Polish people. Others feel offended (see evidence by Molobo). That ensure the battleground." This a very good summary, except downplaying crimes committed by Nazis on Poles is IMHO not that common. Instead what is happening is that IMHO Icewhiz (and Francois, an editor who joined the topic area together with Icewhiz and whose edits are effectively limited to being a "tag-team" yes-man to him) thinks that Poles are trying to exaggerate the extent to which they helped the Jews during the war to counterbalance the shameful revelations about the extent of Polish antisemitism, and so he is trying to both remove the mentions of rescue efforts (as exaggerated) and stress the (according to him - and he is not totally wrong here, marginalized) extent of Polish antisemitism. Now, in all fairness, Polish sources (and populace in general) are biased, roughly in the way he thinks they are... but neither are Israeli (or American, etc.) sources free of bias, and NPOV does allow us to use biased sources, as long as they are reliable, with care to undue and such. I also strongly believe that no editor discussed in this case so far has done anything that warrants anything but a warning at most (this certainly includes Poeticbent, whose topic ban and retirement was actually the worst thing that has happened to this topic area). In particular, I want to stress that while the arrival of Icewhiz (and FR) in this topic area two years ago has created, sadly enough, conflict and battleground, it has also been valuable from the neutrality perspective. The topic area has been indeed unduly dominated by pro-Polish sources, and it needed more balance. It is just a shame this could not have been done in a more collegian fashion, and instead resulted in a progressing battleground mentality (please see my mini-essays on radicalization and the related model). The crux of the issue, really, is the near total erosion of good faith. One side perceives the other as borderline antisemitic; the other, offended, perceives other as anti-Polish, and instead of collaborating, I am afraid too many editors on both sides are increasingly trying to get their opponents banned or blocked (hence, the numerous AE reports that have culminated in this ArbCom). So far, the only real damage was the driving away of Poeticbent, which resulted in the net loss of dozens of articles he would have written and expanded if he was still here. It is nonetheless a great loss, because Poetcibent has done more in this area than all of the other parties here combined, myself included (and while I am a major content creator, I am pretty sure that Poeticbent created more content in this area than me). It is crucial to prevent this from happening again, and if possible, to reverse it by inviting him back (with a note that his contributions are appreciated, and maybe a caution that he should be more careful when editing topics related to the zydokomuna topic). How to solve the bigger issue, i.e. mandate good faith, is mostly besides me (hey, that's why you, the Committee, gets the big wikibucks, eh?). All I can do is to demonstrate why one can perceive Icewhiz edits as anti-Polish (through I am sure from his view he is only restoring the balance and removing undue pro-Polish POV, and hence, per AFG, I personally don't believe he consciously has such a POV). While things need to be 'centered', and pro-Polish bias should be tamed, the examples I presented in my evidence are where IMHO Icewhiz (and occasionally, FR) have went to far, skirting if not violating NPOV, BLP, and other polices, which in turn led to the spiral of retaliation, radicalization and battleground creation which landed us here.

I will also note that one way to decrease battleground mentality is to realize one's POV, and try to make compromise edits, not only grudgingly allowing "others" to have their say, but actually agreeing with them - and putting one's "edits" where one proverbial mouth is. For example, even through I am a Pole, I've created articles on topics controversial to many Poles, such as Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, Hunt for the Jews, Jan Grabowski (historian), or the Golden Harvest (book), because they are notable and needed, even if some of them tackle issues that make my nation appear less then the perfect ideal some wish it was. Poeticbent, as noted, created dozens of articles on Jewish suffering. While one cannot mandate content creation as an enforceable remedy, one can partially judge whether an editor is attempting to compromise or not, and whether their conduct is constructive or not in a given topic, by their edits, in the spirit of Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. I strongly encourage all involved parties to consider whether they are here to build an encyclopedia, or fight a war and prove a side "right" or "wrong".

Rebuttals and recommendations

Lastly, analysis of evidence presented by others. First I do not believe than anyone, myself included, has presented anything that warrants more than a warning, or at least I can't think of what other type of solutions would be helpful, as, IMHO crucially, the quality and neutrality of various articles has been improved. It just would be nice if somehow we could all follow WP:AGF. One recommendation I have, for Icewhiz and FR (that they are already familiar with), would be to treat Polish sources with less suspicion then they do. They are, of course, biased, but so are others, and the Polish sources are often able to access a wealth of primary sources like the Polish eyewitness accounts Western academics simply can't read. And while we should strive to use reliable sources, sometimes WP:SPS or such are acceptable, if they do not raise any WP:REDFLAGS (per Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when...). Case in point, Icewhiz removal of Poray as a source from various ghetto articles (and more recent criticism of Lux Veritas Foundation's website) was very much not helpful.

First, 90% of the content sourced to Poray that was removed could have been verified with more reliable sources (as I've shown).

Second, none of the content removed was 'redflag'. Challenged contented was limited strictly to uncontroversial statements of facts, with no opinions or such being offered. Some common sense perspective is needed. I often deal with cleanup of spam/vanity (WP:NORG, etc.), nominating many articles for deletion. A low quality, SPS, promotional source like a company's website or a press release is still acceptable for uncontroversial statements of facts like company's year of founding or location of their HQ or other facilities, and what Icewhiz is challenging here is no more controversial - simple statements that Person X attempted to aid Person Y, more often then not receiving the Righteous Among Nations award. No heated opinions, just cold and uncontroversial facts that help build content, but whose removal creates a heated controversy as some editors are offended by what they perceive as attempts to censor simple facts.

Third. Icewhiz argues that such facts nonetheless are an attempt to push a particular POV. The relevant policy for us to consider is WP:UNDUE, and the relevant solution, discussion on talk. Generally, per WP:NOTPAPER, we have room for all the facts, but if there are concerns about some sections having undue length or such, the solution is, per WP:SUMMARY, to split them off and only offer a summary in the main article. This is the constructive approach. Removing such information, or trying to get editors who add it sanctioned, is the opposite of being constructive and building an encyclopedia, and results in battleground creation and related problems.

Fourth, going after content added by an editor one was in conflict with, and who retired after an unfair accusation and sanction, is not particularly 'sporting'.

Fifth, the few paltry diffs there were gathered as evidence of my misdoing are little more than illustration of battleground mentality and an attempt to win content disputes by trying to get the other party sanctioned (sadly, it works often enough, case in point being what happened to Poeticbent). Consider (headings adapted from Icewhiz's evidence, through constant revisions of it can make things confusing):

• "dubious sourcing" - I made some arguments on talk as I generally neither add nor restore such sources. And it's not like there is a consensus that they are all unreliable. But again, even disagreement with Icewhiz and trying to explain one's stance and reach compromise by posting, politely, on his talk is 'evidence' of using dubious sources, even if there is no consensus that said sources are dubious. He is right, disagreeing with him is "a crime" and so sources that do not support his POV have to be dubious.
  • Kielce: yes, I accidentally restored Poray SPS (I did not in a bunch of similar edits I made on the same day listed below, not that I consider her unreliable for uncontroversial facts about the Righteous). Icewhiz conveniently omitted to mention that in the same diff I also added another, more reliable source by an expert historian as well which verified all the content. I would not object to removal of this reference, and in fact I myself removed said source later as no longer needed. Note that Icewhiz did not attempt to replace it with a RS himself, remove it or start a discussion - he just reported it here, without first raising any concern with me, or at article's talk. WP:BRD:0, WP:BATTLEGROUND:1.
  • LuxVeritas criticism - also explained elsewhere on this workshop apge. Perfectly uncontroversial information, and acceptable source. Crucially, note that Icewhiz could not find a single source critical of LVFounation, it's all association fallacy and straw man fallacy accusations like (of course Radio Maryja is not an acceptable source, but it's a straw man to imply I ever considered it as such, and it is association fallacy to say that that LVF is unreliable because it receives funding from the same source that RM does, particularly where LVF pages are well referenced and verifiable with RS sources, and used solely for uncontroversial facts, not opinions). Also, Icewhiz again did not even attempt to question this source (never before criticized) on article's talk/RSN in general or mention his concerns about it to me in particular, he instantly brought it up here. It's again a clear failure of WP:BRD and a proof of battleground mentality, not even bothering to try to talk to other editors before asking for outside intervention and presumably sanctions. PS. Finally, if you look at the actual diff in Icewhiz evidence on this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bia%C5%82ystok_Ghetto&diff=902490041&oldid=901627853]), note my edit summary, and consider what is the impact on the battleground attitude of his decision to report this edit here instead of starting some sort of discussion on talk.
  • NCzas (withdrawn): I was just pointing out a source exists, I was not endorsing it nor calling it reliable; I've even (!) pointed out a potential COI of its author. It fits the pattern of attempts to discredit his opponents by taking innocent diffs like commentary on sources and trying to taint his opponents with guilt by association, trying to prejudice neutral parties through insinuations that his opponents are extremists.
  • GHoHG Ongoing RfC "as evidence"... As the still ongoing RfC shows, there is no consensus (yet) the source is unreliable or SPS; an RfC should be allowed to conclude before it is used in evidence or in any other way. Trying to discred it a historian by repeated (in dozen places...) "he has been profiled by SPLC" is irrelevant and tied to BPL issues I raised in my evidence (attracting criticism from an NGO only means one has a stance they disagree with; they are not the final authority on such issues). That another historian called someone else neo-Stalinist doesn't make (either) party unreliable, neither. It's just more guilt by association logic.
  • Kot: is a reliable historian and politician (Icewhiz describes him only as politician...), particularly in this context (first scholar to devote a monograph to the topic, obscure proverb/saying; co-author of that article, User:Pharos, otherwise not involved in this topic area, also considers the source valuable. Kot is also cited by Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (that's how I learned of his work), a scholar whom Icewhiz often cites, clearly considers reliable and whose page he started - and she calls Kot's work a "Solidne studium źródłowe" (solid source analysis). Kot was dismissed from his post due to political issues, nothing to do with quality of his research . What Kot said about Jews, out of context anyway, is irrelevant here and just another association fallacy. This diff, like almost of all Icewhiz's evidence, only reflects on his attempts to dig dirt at all cost - throw enough and hope something sticks and prejudices the neutral parties.
• Barczewo/restitution/Krzyzanowski: edit summaries (or the content of the talk page post) are self-explanatory. What's the problem? Unless, of course, the problem is that disagreeing with Icewhiz is "a crime".
• tag-teaming: seriously? Informing editors about WP:ENABLEEMAIL is bad? For the record, I have exchanged some emails with Icewhiz himself. Maybe someone would like to accuse the two of us of improper collusion and such?
• followed by two or three examples of me and VM editing the same page. Errr. You can probably find thousands. We have similar interests. I could present hundreds of cases where Icewhiz and Francois have edited the same topic and supported one another, too. Like this AfD. Is there anything wrong with that? Of course not. Tag teaming is only a problem if it is related to bypassing 3RR or manipulating voting, and there is zero evidence for that on either side. The only problematic thing that is happening is the erosion of AGF due to spurious accusations..
• I will just note that FR's section 'Overview: Balance and Consensus' is a wonderful idea, but it is GIGO as it does not include numerous relevant discussions like this AfD or this one.

Lastly, it is imperative to stress that it is such challenge and removal of uncontroversial facts that fueled the battleground situation, creating an impression that there is a drive to remove (censor) information about Polish rescuers from Wikipedia. Icewhiz could have reduced the battleground mentality on both sides in this area by extending an olive branch and replacing substandard sources with reliable sources (like I did later, it took just a few hours). But he chose to remove information that he knew well would antagonize editors on the other side further. This type of editing and attitude should be curtailed; either voluntarily or through community's guidance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Rescue: Introducing WP:FRINGE content on the Holocaust, not supported by reliable sources, is an issue. WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE are also issues in relation to individual accounts. Piotrus introducing such content - , sourced to pamiecitozsamosc.pl (per about: "the result of many years of research carried out by the Lux Veritatis Foundation") run by Lux Veritatis Foundation (Rydzyk), which probably counts as self-published, and is "Lux Veritas Foundation run by the ultra-conservative and nationalistic redemptorist Tadeusz Rydzyk, infamous for his anti-Semitic enunciations"Wóycicka, Zofia. "Global patterns, local interpretations: new polish museums dedicated to the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-25. - is beyond the pale. This during the case being open. Also - 12 June 2019 addition of pamiecitozsamosc.pl by Piotrus. This is alarming, to say the least.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Receiving financial support (as part of a 2017 contest) is not an indication of peer review (quite the opposite). Introducing Lux Veritatis (an organization that follows the Rydzyk party line) - an organization that runs Nasz Dziennik, Radio Maryja, Telewizja Trwam - material to Wikipedia is the definition of WP:QS. Holocaust rescue is a complex topic in reliable literature - e.g. Michlic, Joanna B. "Gender Perspectives on the Rescue of Jews in Poland: Preliminary Observations." Polin Studies in Polish Jewry 30 (2018): 407-426.. A website (with an unclear editorial process) run by Lux Veritatis is not remotely an appropriate source for such material. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

For context - Rydzyk runs a media empire (via the Lux Veritatis foundation), this website seemingly a new and minute addition to the empire, that is covered thus - NYT, Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives, Indiana University Press, Western Broadcast Models: Structure, Conduct, and Performance, De Gryuter ("heavily criticized by the mainstream media for its nationalist reporting, anti-Semitic sentiments, EU-sceptical slant and open support for right-wing politicians"), . That this material is peddled on Wikipedia? What's next? Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Occidental Observer/The Occidental Quarterly are seemingly well-referenced as well (inline + citation list at the bottom of every article) - it doesn't mean they are remotely acceptable as sources. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeez - whatever could be the problem with "Radio Maryja and the other extreme nationalist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic media of the controversial Father Rydzyk" as a source on Wikipedia?! Kucia, Marek, Marta Duch-Dyngosz, and Mateusz Magierowski. "Anti-Semitism in Poland: survey results and a qualitative study of Catholic communities." Nationalities Papers 42.1 (2014): 8-36.Nationalities Papers is peer reviewed and published by Cambridge University Press, prof. dr hab. Marek Kucia is tenured at Jagiellonian University. Up to snuff for Holocaust history in Poland per comments here, it would seem.Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "AE where he received his topic ban for a single diff perceived as violating NPA" in regards to Poeticbent is false. The AE was filed by Poeticbent himself (alleging that removing Poray - a dubious SPS - was actionable - irony at its best!). Among others, the following PAs were given as example at the AE: , , , , , . The closing admin saying:

  ":*I've looked more closely at Icewhiz's counterallegations regarding Poeticbent. The charge of misusing SPS isn't something I'd act on, because it's close to a content dispute and it's not realistic to expect admins here to check the reliability of this number of sources; that would need an ArbCom case. But I think that Icewhiz's complaint regarding personal attacks by Poeticbent are actionable; one needs only to look at their most recent edit ("you are being manipulated by a POV pusher with a deep bias against Polish people in general") in addition to Icewhiz's examples to get the impression that this is somebody who operates in full WP:BATTLEGROUND mode. I think that a topic ban from the World War II history of Poland (the apparent topic of this set of disputes) would be appropriate here."

  - specifically saying "in addition to Icewhiz's examples" - so no, not a single diff.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Cut out sig from quote - so it won't appear like comment was made here. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  I will also note, that - "The charge of misusing SPS isn't something I'd act on, because it's close to a content dispute and it's not realistic to expect admins here to check the reliability of this number of sources; that would need an ArbCom case" - is exactly the issue with the current DS regime / AE enforcement. Users may introduce dubious sources, repeatedly, a WP:V policy violation - yet face no enforcement under DS as it is deemed too complex for enforcement.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You should probably format that quote differently because it makes it look like Sandstein commented *here*, which is misleading.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Note that I removed this phrase from my Evidence as pure speculation. Icewhiz and Francois - I do not know, but they obviously want you all banned, judging from their Evidence. And not only they: I noticed that Paul Siebert came up with an idea that "Something is definitely wrong with the group of Polish editors. Of course, majority of anti-Jewish edits they make (or tolerate) ..." . No. He probably forget to check edit history of the page he is talking about. Here is edit by VM on this page - he actually removed that nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really..? François Robere (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: I was not aware of Lux Veritatis connection to Rydzyk (whom I am hardly a fan of), but he is not the one doing the research, is he? It's like trying to discredit some organization for receiving funding from Soros or Koch brothers or whoever one's boogeyman is (i.e. association fallacy). The website notes it has received financial support from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so it has clearly went through some form of authoritative peer review. The content sourced to it seems fine for uncontroversial claims like Person X was involved in the rescue of Jews and received the Righteous Among Nations Award. Is this a REDFLAG material? Or even anything remotely controversial? Nope. Further, the page used as a source is also well referenced, and the story of rescuer Brust and his Righteous award is repeated in numerous indisputably reliable other sources, see this Google Books search, and can be easily verified by anyone with a modicum of good faith. Considering the large number of mentions, Brust is likely a notable individual and I should thank Icewhiz for reminding me of him, I'll try to stub an article about him one day. Lastly, given that the page, in English language, contains uncontroversial information, verifiable with Google Books snippets and such, is well referenced and open access, it is more helpful to use it as a reference then linking to two-three Polish language snippets on Google Books, through of course one could add such references as an extra footnotes - but it seems like an overkill for a simple uncontroversial fact. So, what is it that Icewhiz describes as "beyond pale"? Daring to mention a story of a rescuer on Wikipedia? Sacrilegious indeed. Well, I have my own opinion on what here is "beyond pale"... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Not taking a stand on the larger issue, I just want to note this isn't a fallacy of association: the issue with Koch and Co. isn't just the association, it's the funding. François Robere (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz has engaged in battleground behavior and mentality

Throughout the evidence it is clear that Icewhiz is engaged in edits dictated by uncompromising stance and is unwilling to compromise with others.

Icewhiz has expressed ethnic based prejudice while editing Wikipedia

From comments about Polish media being used as source, to comparing Poland to Iran, North Korea, constantly claiming that Polish sources are unreliable to claiming that occupation of Poland in Second World War is Polish nationalist POV and so forth, it is clear that there is a stance where sources and information is judged on basis of ethnic criteria rather than objective value.

Icewhiz has engaged in Wikihounding

The most controversial of Icewhiz's edits happened when he lost arguments or nominations to DYK articles.Just after this happens Icewhiz goes on wide spree on Polish related articles entering highly controversial claims or straight ahead blanking whole articles.

Community needs to clarify better MOS:Ethnicity

At the moment it isn't clear what type of descriptions are allowed to clearly describe complex identities in Central European/Eastern European topics, especially in context of 19th century and Second World War history.Wikipedia is edited by editors from many national and cultural backgrounds-there might be some cultural miscommunication/clash on what to consider the best description of nationality/ethnicity in places with very detailed and complex history of inter-ethnic relations.These edits are not necessarily expression of ill will, but better guidance would be welcomed.

Icewhiz is in conflict with several editors indicating inability to work with others

I could understand if two editors are in conflict with each other but in this case Icewhiz gets in conflict with any Polish user that he comes across on Wikipedia.Even those who strived hard to reach some kind of compromise and cooperation like Piotrus have eventually been attacked by Icewhiz.

Icewhiz has engaged in POV-pushing and Tendentious editing

Throughout his edits Icewhiz has presented cherry picked information and sources to present extreme claims and statements(Poles=mass murderers of Jews, Poland is equal to Nazi Germany,Poles mass murdered 200,000 Jews). These statements were selected to present the most extreme statements regarding Jewish-Polish history. Even in cases where source later distanced itself from extreme claims(like Grabowski retreating from claim of 200,000 Jews murdered by Poles), Icewhiz continued to add this information, knowning fully that is no longer supported by source, and even dismissing Grabowski's statement as "Polish media report". This example shows that the user was interested in provoking and causing controversy by carefully selecting the most controversial material to be presented on Wikipedia. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: