→Ealdgyth mis-characterized a diff: clarify |
+ evidence "History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II, 2021-ongoing" Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 493: | Line 493: | ||
:One final point, sorry. G&K paper involves Piotrus in the Naliboki saga, {{tq|Various editors over the years tried to fix these edits, but they were brought back by Piotrus and by his like-minded colleague, Volunteer Marek}}. This is unfair. G&K share these two diffs by Piotrus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naliboki_massacre&type=revision&diff=936046073&oldid=933544612&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naliboki_massacre&type=revision&diff=885293545&oldid=885283718.&diffmode=source], which look well within AGF to me and, in the case of the second one, entirely harmless. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 23:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
:One final point, sorry. G&K paper involves Piotrus in the Naliboki saga, {{tq|Various editors over the years tried to fix these edits, but they were brought back by Piotrus and by his like-minded colleague, Volunteer Marek}}. This is unfair. G&K share these two diffs by Piotrus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naliboki_massacre&type=revision&diff=936046073&oldid=933544612&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naliboki_massacre&type=revision&diff=885293545&oldid=885283718.&diffmode=source], which look well within AGF to me and, in the case of the second one, entirely harmless. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 23:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
=== History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II, 2021-ongoing === |
|||
* 18-27 Dec 2019: [[User:Buidhe|Buidhe]] creates [[History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II]] |
|||
* 27 Dec: Piotrus removes content about Polish supervisors beating Jewish forced laborers [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=932634628&diffmode=source] and adds tags:"dubious" to [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23256249.2014.987989 source Farkash] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=932634628&diffmode=source]; JoeZ451 (Icewhiz SP) reverts; [[Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II#Removal_of_sourced_information|t/p discussion]], Piotrus argues that Farkash is a PhD student making exceptional claims per [[WP:REDFLAG]]; Buidhe edits toward consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=932666204&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=932666204&diffmode=source]. |
|||
* 27 Dec 2019-2 Jan 2020: [[Talk:History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II#pre-GA review|pre-GA review discussion]] between Buidhe, Piotrus and Icewhiz SP. Collaborative and policy-compliant discussion (apart from the SP), AGF is very easy. Piotrus is worried by content involving Polish responsability, doubts the quality of the sources, asks for corroboration in other sources, which he gets. Article changes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=934018265&oldid=932610484&diffmode=source], Farkash is no longer a "historian" and is used as RS with attribution. |
|||
* 6 Mar 2020: [[Wikipedia:Good articles|GAN]], listed; 14 Sep 2020: [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|FAC]], promoted. Buidhe continues to work on the article in 2020–2021. |
|||
* 19 May 2021: edit war starts. VM removes text on local ethnic Poles and [[Home Army]] being hostile to Jewish fugitives because {{tq|not what Zimmerman says}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=1023930372&diffmode=source] (see [[Talk:Antisemitism in Poland/Draft#Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)|verbatim quotations from source]] Zimmerman p. 213 and p. 361) and removes simillar claims based on source Farkash because {{TQ|there was some discussions and redflag concerns on this back in Dec 19/Jan 20 but I don't think the edits were ever implemented}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1023930372&diffmode=source]; Buidhe restores: {{TQ|This is a featured article. Please get consensus for changes before implemeting them}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1023931469&diffmode=source]; VM reverts: {{TQ|if sources are misrepresented then perhaps it SHOULDN'T be a featured article}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1023935524&diffmode=source]; Buidhe restores {{TQ|Your claims about the Zimmerman source are baseless, I just double-checked}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1023935847&diffmode=source]. VM adds tag:POV section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1023943505&diffmode=source]. GKB makes mininal inconsequential edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1023948615&diffmode=source]. |
|||
* 19 May: VM joins the [[Talk:History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II#pre-GA review|t/p discussion]], {{tq|I've tried to implement some of the suggestions and address the concerns made above [by Piotrus] ... However I was reverted by Buidhe with the usual "get consensus" edit summary ... User:Buidhe. Please stop edit warring ... stop using aggressive edit summaries ... I'm taking it up with the person who put the misrepresentation of the source in the article in the first place. You ... Please stop claiming "no consensus! no consensus!" ... use of graduate student's work for WP:REDFLAG claims. In fact you yourself acknowledged these concerns in a positive manner in your comments from December! So why are you reverting now?}} |
|||
* 23-24 May: edit war continues. VM removes {{tq|restoring edit per NO CONSENSUS}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=1024751814]; Buidhe restores {{tq|The article passed FAC. The text, therefore, has consensus}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1024751814&diffmode=source]. GCB removes {{tq|Buidhe, I’m sorry but WP:ONUS is on you}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1024757340&diffmode=source]; Buidhe restores [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1024774725&diffmode=source]; VM removes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1024776694&diffmode=source]; DrKay restores [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1024779219&diffmode=source]; GCB removes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1024818520&diffmode=source]; DrKay restores removing the contentious word "fugitives" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1024887398&diffmode=source]. |
|||
* 25-26 May: Chumchum7 adds the tag:"citation needed" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=1025082954&diffmode=source]; Z1720 removes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1025082954&diffmode=source]; Chumchum7 restores [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1025083866&diffmode=source]; Chipmunkdavis removes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1025113237&diffmode=source]. |
|||
* 26 May: Piotrus modifies contentious text [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1025161401&diffmode=source] and adds Poles helping Jews [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1025166919&diffmode=source]; Buidhe reverts with detailed edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1025167573&diffmode=source]; Piotrus removes contentious text [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1025167742&diffmode=source]; Buidhe reverts {{TQ|If you insist on restoring pre-dispute versions, the correct version is the one that passed FAC. Don't make deletions without proposing on the talk page per WP:FAOWN.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=1025171380]; VM reverts {{TQ|You can’t quote WP:OWN as a justification for acting like you own the article!}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=1025177817&diffmode=source] |
|||
* 26 May. <bdi>Ymblanter</bdi> fully protects. 29-30 May. Virus Swatter (Icewhiz SP?) restores [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=1025758062&diffmode=source]; GCB reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=1025758062&diffmode=source]. |
|||
* 19 May-27 May 2021, during the edit war, long t/p discussion [[Talk:History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II#quotations requests|quotations requests]], followed by longer discussions. Notable points: VM disputes that the text refers to "Jewish fugitives"; GCB: {{TQ|Buidhe, could you clarify the major concern VM raised rather than reverting [12]. Such a reaction is not what's expected}}; Buidhe explains she rephrased per COPYVIO and replaced "Jewish bands" with "Jewish fugitives" per WP:IMPARTIAL; VM disagrees: {{tq|your statement is both inaccurate and cherry picked ... I would also appreciate it Buidhe, if you made an actual effort to discuss the disagreements and not only when you’re edit warring ... And let me point out, *again*, that some of these issues were already discussed previously back in Dec 19 ... don’t try to construct strawman here. I’m also not interested in your own [[Wikipedia:OR|original research]]}}; GCB concurrs with VM; Chipmunkdavis joins and supports Buidhe: {{tq|The sentences cited to Zimmerman 2015 213 & 361 seem a reasonable reflection of the content per the quote provided}}; also Z1720 agrees: {{tq|I think the above text is verified by the sources}} and {{tq|I do not understand why it was so important for this text to be removed before consensus was reached}}; GCB is {{tq|completely puzzled}} by their analysis; Piotrus joins {{tq|We should make it clear that per the source cited, the "fugitives" were stealing resources from the peasants}}; also Chumchum7 adds to that side of the argument challenging the notion that {{tq|the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people}} (they were hostile because Jews stole food and were communists); Buidhe {{tq|I hope you agree that we do not want to be reproducing [[zydokomuna]] stereotypes on Wikipedia}}. Informal RfC proposed by GCB: instead of stable version{{tqb|According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants}} she wants {{tqb|According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources}}From there on, the discussion becomes TL;DR: around the end of May, no less than 8 proposals were ready for an upcoming RfC. Eventually Z1720 and Buidhe very reluctantly agree to remove the quotation from Zimmerman 361 (12 and 18 June). VM agrees {{tq|No, looks good, thanks for all the hard work}}. However, the text with Zimmerman p. 213 and Farkash is never restored. Buidhe has abandoned the article. She explains in an interview with Shira Klein [https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/history_data/1/]: {{tqb|I completely stopped editing in the topic area at all because of people deleting content for ideological reasons (this happened, for example, at "History of the Jews in Deblin and Irena during World War II" and the 2018 Polish Holocaust law). I found it was a waste of time to argue and my efforts were better spent in other areas where people didn't delete my work}} |
|||
* 31 March 2023. I {{TQ|Restored version that passed as featured article (FAC). Text removed in May-June 2021 without consensus on the talk page}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=1147455311&diffmode=source] VM reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_D%C4%99blin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=1147467628&diffmode=source] and opens a discussion on the t/p with heading "[[Talk:History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II#Restarting old disputes|Restarting old disputes]]" (ongoing). |
|||
==Evidence presented by Volunteer Marek== |
==Evidence presented by Volunteer Marek== |
Revision as of 09:37, 31 March 2023
Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)
Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023
Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk), Firefly (Talk), MJL (Talk), ToBeFree (Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk), Primefac (Talk), Wugapodes (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.
Evidence phases
- During the first evidence phase all evidence that relates to the scope of the case will be accepted. For the first week after the case opens, evidence may be submitted for the purpose of adding another party to the case.
- During the second evidence phase, only evidence that rebuts other evidence (see Rebuttals below) or which answers a question posed by an arbitrator will be allowed. Any evidence which does not meet this standard may be removed, collapsed, closed, or otherwise addressed by an Arbitrator or clerk without warning.
Submitting evidence
- Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
- You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
- Evidence found to be pertinent by an Arbitrator or Clerk will be added to the /Summary page and collapsed here
- Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.
Word and diff limits
- The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.Evidence that has been summarized and collapsed does not count against an editor's word or diff limits
- If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
- Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.
Supporting assertions with evidence
- Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
- Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.
Rebuttals
- The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
- Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Analysis page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.
Expected standards of behavior
- You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
- Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
- Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
- Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
- Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
- Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
For additional information and context about the evidence phase, please see the Frequently Asked Questions
For questions or requests by the Arbitrators please see this section on the Analysis page.
Evidence presented by Adoring nanny
Having more editors is good for this topic area
Summarized at /Summary#Naliboki massacre
|
---|
In particular, the article Naliboki massacre was vastly improved by a recent series of edits by editors with different points of view. Version as of mid February[1]. Current version (March 13)[2]. The old version was borderline antisemitic. I don't see such issues with the current version, though others may differ. The old version left the question of the participation of Jewish partisans a bit mysterious, with a few hints of yes, and somewhat-stronger hints of no. The current version makes it clear that the allegation is unproven at best and probably false. The old version contained useless info about a commission not having completed its work as of years ago. The new version summarizes what they did. The collaboration was required. For example, I certainly could not have done it on my own as I don't speak Polish. That said, the differing points of view of the various editors, much of which involves issues I don't understand, is severe enough that it resulted in an AE thread[3] with some mild sanctions. Certainly some people were less than happy with each other. I do wish everyone would calm down. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by Ealdgyth
Introduction
|
---|
(2285 words) Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
First, a note of warning. I'm up to 28K words documenting inaccuracies that I've found in our articles on the Holocaust (not just in Poland, but also some of the more general topics) (and still working on it - I've only gotten about halfway through Treblinka extermination camp where I'm comparing much of the article to the sources and discovering that much doesn't support things - I've also done a lighter look at Extermination camp, Judenrat, and Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). Much of it is source-integrity issues and in a lot of cases, it's almost impossible to figure out who originally added the problem because so much reverting has gone on over the years as well as shuffling of text around without making sure the source citations stayed with things. So some of my evidence will be of a generalized nature - just showing how skewed or inaccurate our articles are without necessarily trying to "pin blame". I'll try to keep the evidence to the worst cases - rather than drive you all as insane as I'm feeling with discovering this massive problem. (Yes, I'm keeping a list of all the errors I'm finding and will fix them as the case concludes) (This section |
|
Summarized at Bibliography
|
---|
|
Added 30 March 2023
From Extermination camp - my full audit of the article is at User:Ealdgyth/Extermination camp audit. Note that I attempt to try to figure out who originally did the edit, but I do not claim to be an expert on diff excavation and I could be wrong on some of the "who did this" parts. The "this isn't supported"/"this is wrong"/"this isn't a reliable source" stuff though, I am confident of. I hadn't originally planned to introduce evidence relating to Poeticbent, but with the introduction of a long list of Icewhiz socks, I figured banned/retired editors were fair game.
- "The camps designed specifically for the mass gassings of Jews were established in the months following the Wannsee Conference chaired by Reinhard Heydrich in January 1942 in which the principle was made clear that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated. Responsibility for the logistics was to be handled by the programme administrator, Adolf Eichmann." is sourced to this copy of the Wannsee Protocols. Two issues - one - much of the article text is drawing conclusions/making statements that aren't supported by the Protocols text. Second - the protocols are a primary document.
- this source is from a consulting firm and relies on three sources - a 1944 source, a 1963 source, and a 1985 source (they state this in the introduction). We should not be using these older sources ... given the opening of archives after the fall of the Soviet Union, generally, all statistics from before then should not be relied on.
- "The mass killing facilities were developed at about the same time inside the Auschwitz II-Birkenau subcamp of a forced labour complex" is sourced to Grossman's original reporting on Treblinka/etc from 1946 and is a primary source.
- "After the invasion of Poland in September 1939, the secret Aktion T4 euthanasia programme – the systematic murder of German, Austrian and Polish hospital patients with mental or physical disabilities authorized by Hitler – was initiated by the SS in order to eliminate "life unworthy of life" (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), a Nazi designation for people who they considered to have no right to life." is sourced to this reliable source Death and Deliverance but lacks a page number, and to this source which is not really an academic source at all. The website does NOT support anything it's attached to. Without a page number, I can't easily verify if Burleigh Death and Deliverance supports the information. And in any case, the SS was not involved in Aktion T4. This information was added to the article with Special:Diff/645241196 this 2015 edit by Poeticbent. Please note that this edit had no source at all attached to it.
- "In 1941, the experience gained in the secretive killing of these hospital patients led to the creation of extermination camps for the implementation of the Final Solution. By then, the Jews were already confined to new ghettos and interned in Nazi concentration camps along with other targeted groups, including Roma, and the Soviet POWs. The Nazi's so-called "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", based on the systematic murder of Europe's Jews by gassing, began during Operation Reinhard," is sourced to this Yad Vashem source which does not support the "the experience gained in the secretive killing of these hospital patients led to the creation of extermination camps for the implementation of the Final Solution" (which has other issues as this implies that the T4 program was the impetus to the extermination camps, where it was more that the T4 personnel became available for use in Operation Reinhard but the search for ways to murder Jews besides shooting had already begun before the T4 input came into the process) nor " interned in Nazi concentration camps along with other targeted groups, including Roma, and the Soviet POWs." most Jews/Roma/POWs were not interned in concentration camps before Reinhard - so the juxtipostion here is misleading. NOr is "The Nazi's so-called "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", based on the systematic murder of Europe's Jews by gassing" supported by the YV source. The Final Solution was not only gassing - there's the millions killed by shooting in Eastern Europe - so this is also misleading. This was added in Special:Diff/681187167 this 2015 edit by Poeticbent.
- "On 13 October 1941, the SS and Police Leader Odilo Globocnik stationed in Lublin received an oral order from Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler – anticipating the fall of Moscow – to start immediate construction work on the killing centre at Bełżec in the General Government territory of occupied Poland. Notably, the order preceded the Wannsee Conference by three months," is sourced to this source (which I accessed with google translate) but the source does NOT support this information - the statement in the source is "The decision on Operation Reinhardt, and thus the construction of the camp, was most likely made at a conference on October 13, 1941 at Hitler's headquarters in the "Wolf's Lair" near Kętrzyn in East Prussia. In addition to Heinrich Himmler, senior SS and Police commanders in the General Government took part in it, including Odilo Globocnik, commander of the SS and Police in the Lublin district, whose jurisdiction the camp in Bełżec was to be subordinate." This information was added to the article with Special:Diff/681187167 this 2015 edit by Poeticbent.
- "but the gassings at Chełmno north of Łódź using gas vans began already in December, under Sturmbannführer Herbert Lange." is sourced to Christopher Browning Remembering Survival pp. 54, 65. This is not quite what Browning has to say. On page 54, he says "the itinerant 'euthanasia' Sonderkommando (special commando) under Herber Lange, on loan from Poznan. (This was the unit that susequently founded the Chelmno death camp near Lodz)" and on p. 65 "By November [1941], a fleet of thirty gas vans was on order, and construction of death camps was underway at Chelmno in the Warthegau (near Lodz) and Belzec in the Lublin district of the General Government." I can't say that Browning supports the article text - it's close, but not there. This was added in Special:Diff/681213547 this edit from 2015 by Poeticbent.
- If these are too old or if non-parties aren't welcome as evidence, please let me know, but I'm showing this sort of evidence to show that there are severe issues with the suite of articles in the topic area ... Ealdgyth (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'll add that as of mid-March these were still in the article - I didn't dig in the history of the article ... much of this should still be there in the current version of the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by El_C
Volunteer Marek BLPCRIME vio (March 6, 2023)
Summarized at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Volunteer Marek
|
---|
During very lengthy discussion at Gitz6666's talk page, a discussion which I had noticed in passing and did not read in full, Volunteer Marek (VM) violated WP:BLPCRIME using shocking language (17:55, 5 March 2023 — admins only), which I immediately (Redacted) and revdeleted (22:22, 6 March 2023 — admins only). No further action (or a recommendation for one) was taken by me save for that urgent revdel, citing specifically this impending case. |
GizzyCatBella AE misuse (March 3, 2023)
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving GizzyCatBella
|
---|
A bit of background. A little while ago, new ArbCom member, GeneralNotability, dropped by my talk page to ask: Now, consider GizzyCatBella (GCB) at WP:AE#TrangaBellam (permalink). GCB is (or at least should be) very familiar with the AE board: as a filer, as a party, as a participant, as an appellant, etc. Her misuse in this AE complaint —a complaint featuring TrangaBellam, a content opponent of GCB's (I think?)— was that GCB had used double the number of diffs that's allowed: +40 instead of the max of 20 (05:46, 3 March 2023). The thing is I did actually get to it fast, stating only a couple of hours later that: |
Volunteer Marek disparages arbitrator Wugapodes at the WPO (March 20, 2023)
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The status of Wikipediocracy discussions as pertaining to this case, and their possible role as evidence, remains ambiguous. What isn't ambiguous, however, is VM using that venue today to publicly disparage arbitrator Wugapodes. The post in question reads (in full):
But at least it's "out in the open rather than happening behind the scenes"... Anyway, so are we pretending it's a secret, or, what are we doing? El_C 11:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
Volunteer Marek attempts to antagonize me at the WPO (March 23, 2023)
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In response to my above evidence submission, VM now seems to be attempting to antagonize me at the WPO (where I do not have an account). Normally, I could not care less, but I submit that him doing so in the midst of an active arbitration case to which he is party, is bad form. The post in question reads (in part):
For the record, I am neither "mad" nor do I wish to "police" the WPO, but again, I'd challenge that an active arbitration case to which he is party is different. El_C 04:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by GizzyCatBella
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving GizzyCatBella
|
---|
Responding to the accusation of misconduct (not trimming my diffs at AE) by EC_I:
|
About current threats broadcasted by the IP 199.7.159.46 ( see Evidence presented by LEvalyn): I addressed those recent joe-job attempts here including IP 199.7.159.46 (see my remarks at Maybe semiprotect that Signpost talk page): Background: I was followed on Wikipedia and harassed by Icewhiz's sock puppets for the last 3 years. (Icewhiz doesn't know my real identity, thank God) His sock-puppets (or sock-puppets of his pals) acted to be me in the past. That was the latest attempt. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Note to ArbCom:
- My apologies for not being able to respond and present evidence promptly, but I'm dealing with weighty real-time matters. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Summarized at Disruption in the topic area over time
|
---|
List of blocked sock-puppets in the topic area since Icewhiz's global ban:
Note: There are additional likely sock-puppet accounts of Icewhiz with 2-3 edits that haven't been blocked. The above list also doesn't include blocked VPN-generated IPs, 1 edit throw-away accounts and blocked accounts that made threats and insults and aren't public to view anymore. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by LEvalyn
Battleground mentalities create a shockingly toxic editing environment
Summarized at /Summary#The Forgotten Holocaust
|
---|
My primary interest is in historical books. Following a request for input at WP Books, I went to the talk page for The Forgotten Holocaust. I made a small number of comments offering what I think were fairly unobjectionable suggestions, based on my expertise with book articles: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. For these comments, an anonymous threat was left on my talk page. You will see that I am accused of Slandering the reputation of Poland and lying about Jewish communist crimeseven though not one of my comments said anything about Poland or Jewish people. That escalation suggests a severe and deeply entrenched battleground mentality somewhere. This is the very first online threat of any kind I have received in my life, and I am not a young person. Something is very, very wrong here. I was already growing exhausted by the talk page when this threat occurred. Although the anonymous threat is the most alarming part, I would also observe the following troubling phenomena:
The key obstructive move I encountered was a large number of small claims that are so strange that they are hard to respond to. I question Piotrus' willingness or WP:COMPETENCE to evaluate appropriate sources in this context. I see very alarming behaviour from Piotrus, Nihil Novi, and GizzyCatBella, which will drive away constructive editors. And I think it would be well worth investigating the IP address of the anonymous threat I received. [signing retroactively, sorry ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)] |
Evidence presented by Zero0000
Threats. The stupid threats with deliberately stereotypical language left by 199.7.159.46 on the talk pages of multiple users just as this case opens is just so convenient. Since the only plausible effect of this trolling was to prejudice the case in the anti-Polish direction, the most likely explanation is that the troll intended exactly that. False flag, in other words, and I'm confident the committee won't fall for it. Zerotalk 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Response to LEvalyn. I studied Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust diff-by-diff starting at the first version edited by LEvalyn. It had been suggested that the article deserved a TNT because of Grabowski&Klein's attack on it, and LEvalyn agreed. (As an aside, I believe Wikipedia should never offload its responsibility for article content to an external person or group.) LEvalyn came to that talk page with the claim of being an expert on writing articles about books [11] but encountered resistance. What followed after that was a garden-variety non-toxic discussion about what the article should contain and what its structure should be. It is perfectly reasonable to have different opinions on how and how many book reviews should be mentioned in an article on a book. LEvalyn asserted: "any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book",[12] but that is not true; lots of mainstream history books get critical reviews and sometimes entire journal issues are devoted to debate about them. LEvalyn is concerned that the article might give someone a positive impression of the book.[13] LEvalyn's charges against Piotrus have no foundation; in fact Piotrus only offered fair opinion expressed politely. Agree with those opinions or not, they were not "long", nor "unconstructive", nor did they "misrepresent academic norms". It was Piotrus who asked for a 3O.[14] GCB's hanging offence was a single sentence suggesting that the article be expanded! In my opinion, LEvalyn did not identify any behavioral problems and the talk about driving people away is silly. Zerotalk 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by Piotrus
Response to LEvalyn
Moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Analysis and to be included in /Summary#The_Forgotten_Holocaust
|
---|
First, I want to thank LEvalyn for joining the discussion (the more editors become involved in related discussions, the better), and express my sadness that she has been subject to harassment by an IP. Second, I'd like to note that I indeed misundertood the invokation of WP:TNT and at first thought some editors are suggesting blanking this entire article without a discussion, because I've seen such issues occasionally brought up at AfD where I am a frequent contributor (at AfD, in my experience, invoking TNT means saying "this is a total mess, delete it, nothing to rescue"). Misunderstandings happen, but I believe I was respectful and polite, and when my misunderstanding was explained (that concerns were related to a particular section, not the entire article), I did not press the issue. Third, I tried to create a friendly-to-newcomers atmosphere by explicitly inviting people to make edits [15] |
Trust and Safety statement regarding my contributions to this project as well as harassment and blackmail intended to drive me away
Summarized at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Piotrus
|
---|
I would like to add to the public evidence information that I have been subject to a lenghty on- and off-wiki campaign of harassment that explicitly concerns the this topic area. The following is a quote from a statement by User:JEissfeldt (WMF) from meta:Trust and Safety, issued to me in a pdf format that I can send to any interested party. (bolding harassment description)
For additional context, I'll mention that the harasser directly stated, in messages to me that T&S and ArbCom are aware, that they indend to take control of this topic area through driving me (and other editors) away by, among others, destroying our reputation, on- and off-wiki, through media pressure. The blog mentioned refers to [16]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
Conduct of parties
- Original paragraph moved to talk page
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of Evidence involving Elinruby
|
---|
PS. Evidence is supposed to have diffs/links. Well, regarding the two newly added parties. Elinruby has been doing a tremendous job with verification of references and restructuring of content at Collaboration with the Axis powers, where according to current article statistics they account for a third or so of content and edits ([17]). This deserves a barnstar, not being a party to this clustercase. TrangaBellam has recently created four articles related to historiography of the topic (Glaukopis, Mariusz Bechta, Tomasz Greniuch and Marcin Zaremba). They are not perfect but we are better of with having them than with red links. I could go on, but the point is simple: while some debates might be a bit overheated, Wikipedia is improving. The solution to all problems is AGF, not A-boards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC) |
Off-wiki activities causing damage to Wikipedia require a response
While I have, as stated above, no concerns about on-wiki behavior by any party, I do have concerns about off-wiki behavior. Specifically, I believe that Champansh’s essay violates our policies on off-wiki harassment (also seen here). Additional policies of concern include WP:Aspersions, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. While it was published off-wiki, per past ArbCom’s statements of principles, it is relevant. Framing this with the language from our policies: I feel “threatened and intimidated” by how her essay discusses me; I believe that the essay’s goal is to “make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for [me] and to undermine, frighten, or discourage [me] from editing”, and that it “was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community” (for example, the time I spent on this ArbCom case means time I spent not improving the encyclopedia, and the resulting media coverage has reduced my motivation to engage with the project). This is related to the previously submitted evidence that the goal of site-banned editor Icewhiz is to harass volunteers (myself, VM and others) to drive us away from this project.
I want to note that:
- 1) the essay authors were aware of Icewhiz’s goal (I have sent the statement from Trust and Safety to Champansh on December 1st 2020, and explained this issue to her at length in emails and voice interviews from that time) but they nonetheless decided to repeat Icewhiz’s claims (see VM's analysis here - Table 1);
- 2) the authors could have written their paper without the need to name particular editors, particularly ones which are not anonymous and who have been subject to severe harassment;
- 3) the authors explicitly stated that they desire Wikipedia’s governing bodies to initiate an action (
It would also behoove the Wikimedia Foundation to look into the wide-scale distortion on the English Wikipedia…
) and in newspaper article here (we will not enter into further polemics with Mr. Konieczny, leaving the judgment of his actions to the Wikipedia oversight bodies
), and so intend to have "a direct and foreseeable... effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community”.
Therefore, I submit that if we are not finding the claimed systematic, intentional distortion of Holocaust
(as claimed in the essay's very abstract), then that effect is "damaging" and requires a community responce, to prevent actual damage to Wikipedia (i.e. empowerment of harassment of me and other volunteers). This has already been raised by a number of non-parties in preeliminary statements. To quote User:Beyond My Ken from here: surely if the evidence shows that those claims [made in the article] are, to any extent, inappropriate, then Chapmansh should be judged for their attacks on those editors
, and User:Nosebagbear: I do have a query whether certain of the accusations raised against an editor in the article would be viewed as off-wiki aspersion-casting
. Academics are welcome to comment on and criticize Wikipedia’s content and policies, but when they extensively criticize individual editors, to now quote User:Tryptofish from here: It is longstanding community consensus that participating in off-site harassment/outing is sanctionable. This is one of the most serious issues in this case
and User:Drmies [18]: Wikipedia editors can be and have been held to account for off-wiki behavior
. And I'll end with quotes from User:Red-tailed hawk [19]: I am particularly sensitive to thinly evidenced accusations of conspiracy to intentionally distort certain topic areas on Wikipedia… alleging that editors are engaging in off-wiki conspiracy requires stronger evidence… people should not be using off-wiki platforms to attempt to further on-wiki disputes in which they have become involved
and User:Cavarrone who cautioned against setting a precedent of someone using their RL position to attack other editors outside of Wikipedia, provoking a case against them within Wikipedia, and avoiding being held accountable for their statements
.
With regards to the numerous instances the essay violates our policies. First it makes many serious accusations such as repeated claims of Holocaust distortion and labelling me and others “distortionists”. I enumerate a number here (since they were made off-wiki, no diffs can be linked, and quoting them fully would put me over the evidence word count).
Summarized at Article and Response
|
---|
Second, for examples of factual errors concerning me and/or other editors, including a claim already judged as false by previous ArbCom case, see: 2 Case of Halibutt (Halibutt is accused of deliberatery introducing a hoax whereas Vorthax is more likely the culprit here), 6.3 False claim that I inserted criticism into Polonsky's biography (I did not), 14 Case of Poeticbent's photo (repeating a claim ‘’already’’ analyzed and discarded by ArbCom in 2019: Icewhiz interpreted an apparent error by Poeticbent as a deliberate hoax), 7.1 On the false claim of "Embellishing Kurek" (I just added a mixed review of her work to her biography), 8.3 On claim that Muszyński article "authored by Piotrus, continues to read as a list of accolades" (the stub I created listed one state award, and had a much longer section on a controversy surrounding him) or 17-18 Selective quotations (which suggest I defend/endorse some fringe scholars where in fact I am cautioning against their use). Third, the essay portrays me (and others) in a very one sided way, omitting numerous examples of where I criticized individuals described by the essay authors as nationalist/far-right, or where I praised/used as a source individuals described by the authors as mainstream scholars (even Grabowski himself), or where I added content that goes against the “heroic Polish narrative” or broadly defined “distortion”. See: 6.4 On omission of evidence that I and others cited or praised Polonsky and other scholars the authors accuse us of discrediting, 6.5 On omission of evidence that I and others criticized Kurek and other scholars the authors accuse us of idealizing, 7.2 On omission of evidence that I criticized Kurek, 8.2 On omission of evidence that I criticized Muszyński, 13.2 On omission of my additions of Grabowski's 2020 newspaper comments to talk pages of articles, and section 27 on ommission of content I've created that contradicts said "narrative" or "distortion". |
Addendum: Champansh was active in this topic area in the past, for example making comments in discussions [20], [21], [22] and editing articles [23]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Elinruby
Marcelus and Gitz6666
Summarised at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area
|
---|
At the moment I can't find the original discussion where Marcellus offered to do this, but Marcelus deserves vast credit for his rewrite of the Jewish collaboration section,[24] whose referencing I had been unsuccessful in getting someone to address. (see RSN thread already put in evidence by Horse Eye's Back) I also felt the section was overly focused on blaming individuals and on the Warsaw ghetto. Note intelligent and helpful suggestions from Gitz6666, one of which Marcelus incorporated into the section. The second suggestion, he said, would be for an article of which the section is a summary, which is exactly what Marcelus and I had previously discussed, that the section would be a summary of an article not yet written. The section is vastly more neutral now. Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
Piotrus
Summarised at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area
|
---|
Piotrus has made a huge effort to address the referencing problems I discovered at Collaboration with the Axis powers, which, please note, seem to have largely not have been of his making. He has considerably improved several aspects of the referencing in the Poland section, including several sources that failed verification. I am out of my area of expertise there, so others may want to review what was done in the section, but the failed verifications are gone. For an example of a collegial discussion with him, please see here, where we discuss the difficulties of providing a page number for a reference to Eichmann in Jerusalem. It is still unresolved, btw, so if anyone has insight into the technical issue, or can find the supporting text in another edition, please speak up. Otherwise I guess the text will need to be removed. I also saw in a reference in one of the historiography sections that she is now believed to have been mistaken about the Judenräte, so if anyone can confirm that, perhaps we can explain the controversy rather than remove such a notable book outright. I can provide other diffs of Piotrus behaving like the honest academic I believe him to be, but am presenting this in the spirit of adding new chunks of evidence sooner rather than longer essays later. Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
Support adding Gitz6666 as party
Summary at /Summary#Gitz6666
|
---|
I have been working since February on Collaboration with the Axis powers and have with the help of quite a few other editors managed to improve the referencing and English. Possibly the balance as well. I am one of several editors who took an interest in the topic area, but I am somewhat bemused (although fairly serene) about being the only one to become a party, considering the peaceful nature of our work at the collaboration article. I am not particularly fussed about this, but since some other editors have behaved aggressively and belligerently and one of these is also a party, with whom Gitz was in fact working on at least some of the articles where arguments and accusations occurred, then why would they not also be asked to answer for that? I have a number of diffs and analyses to submit but since the deadline to request to add a new party has as far as I know not been extended, I would like the committee to take note that if Gitz is added I may have some things to say, but VM has really covered most of what needed to be said on the subject in the Editor Interaction tool, so if the scope blows up it won't be from my 5-6 addition diffs about Gitz. |
Apparently needs to be said
Most of this was evidence outside the topic area. What was in the topic area summarized at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area
|
---|
I laughed at a recent allegation that I don't work collaboratively, because:
Those and the other barnstars, as well as the editor of the week award, can be found here, with a couple more on the talk page. CommonsElinruby (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC) |
Grabowski assertion correct?
Summarized at /Summary#Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers
|
---|
Grabowski, quotes and taked issue with the Collaboration article: I opened an RSN post about the reference supporting this sentence [26].
|
Previously-warned editor's attitude
Having been warned about their behaviour at Naliboki massacre towards other editors, (AE case, reaction to case, reaction to warning), TrangaBellam bulldozes articles, refusing to discuss.[27] [28]
I fault her not at all for verifying sources. But her rigid preconceptions and disdainful treatment of input raise the question of how well she knows the topics she rewrites. She accused an editor many times more senior of "shenanigans", [29], and rejected his input.
Senior editors can be wrong of course and most of them have the grace to admit it. But they often have the benefit of having made enough mistakes to recognize one when they see it, and this is why it is wrong to dismiss them out of hand.[30], No, [31], [32], edit summary,[33],[34]
TB's questionable expertise in the topics she unilaterally rewrites is concerning. She has for example opined on whether a pl.wikipedia was neutrally written. Was she correct? More correct than Piotrus, whom she was instructing? Maybe but maybe not. Is she competent to decide whether Holocaust denial belongs in the lede for a given historian? [35][36], [37][38], [39], [40]
Reliability of sources has some objective measures, but can this nuanced call be made for a publication you don't know in a language you don't speak about facts you're unfamiliar with? That's a *really* nuanced question for an amateur historian to opine upon in Wikivoice. Her userpage says she is an R programmer. (writing sample)
Since Grabowski, she has been editing in Poland. I noticed at the "Glaukopis" RSN post that this behaviour continues. A talk page I noticed cites this RSN.
I tried to report this thread. Allegations followed, which I hotly dispute but don't care to spend my words on.[41][42] [43][44]
The following evidence supports the behaviour pattern:
- TNT: [45], [46],
BLP issues:
- Deleting reference: [47]
- Accusations of trolling: [48], [49]
- Large meaning change?: [50]
- Sign of issue?: [51], [52], dismissed BLP concern,[53]
- Accusation of bad faith: [54], [55]
- Bias? Unsure: [56], edit summary, [57], [58][59]
[60]
Evidence presented by Horse Eye's Back
General topic area
Summarized at /Summary#Reliable Sources Noticeboard
|
---|
This is not my core topic area, my current involvement began at the reliable sources noticeboard when the newly published Grabowski & Klein piece was brought to RSN on February 10. I was the first at RSN to read and evaluate the source (which took me about an hour, I take RSN very seriously). At the time I said that the source seemed reliable and matched my own understanding of the topic area. I brought up Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#Mass removal of criticisms from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance[61] which had been stuck in my mind for years as egregious... I was heavily involved in a very important RfC above it on RSN Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA) and remember explicitly refraining from commenting because I was almost certain that it would lead to retaliation against me in the discussion I was working on. What this says to me is that this was always an open secret, we always knew that a certain group of editors would disrupt the project to get their way in their own little kingdom. We didn't need Grabowski & Klein to tell us that, anyone who was paying attention knew it. Since that RSN post I have involved myself rather heavily in this topic area, my observations and diffs post February 10 will be presented in future sections. |
Here is the other time I didn't get involved in this topic area and regret it. Going back to 2020 on Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum we find Piotrus and Nihil novi engaged in a battle against all comers, they effectively stonewall @Chumchum7:, @Warshy:, and SarahSV (deceased). Those involved said it best[62][63]. I watched that whole series of discussions but didn't participate, in hindsight I feel great shame at that. I feel like my silence enabled abuse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back can you please link to the 2020 discussions you're referencing here? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 3#The historical context where the content of this page needs to be located, Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 3#A distinction, Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 3#Outsider comment. All more or less one discussion but flows under three headings. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
We are not our past
Summarized at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Piotrus
|
---|
I believe that the point of this proceedings is generally that evidence of misconduct or issues is provided but I would ask leave to also provide evidence in favor of Piotrus, among all the editors under discussion they seem to have made the most growth in terms of how they interact with other editors. The Piotrus I see when I look at years old diffs is not the Piotrus I see today, I like the current one much better. There are a few places where I've noted this but the one I have a diff for is[64]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Additional diff:[65] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Recentish noticeboard discussions
RSN
FTN
Summarised at /Summary#Fringe_Theory_Noticeboard
|
---|
Harassment of Chapmansh by Volunteer Marek
Summary at /Summary#Chapmansh and Volunteer Marek
|
---|
In my opinion Volunteer Marek has engaged in WP:HARASSMENT against Chapmansh. This harassment is most visible in the form of repeated pings which occurred in the time period following the publication of the article. These pings began on the 10th[66] and by the 12th they clearly no longer served a legitimate purpose (Chapmansh had not gotten involved in the discussions) so I asked VM to desist [[67]] but they didn't, I asked them a second time to stop gratuitously pinking Chapmansh[68] they replied "I'm sorry but are you Chapmansh? If Chapmansh wishes to ask me not to ping them then they can do that (I've only did it a few times where it was pertinent). And can I inquire why you find it necessary to reply and comment on almost every single comment I make? This is getting extremely tiresome and is looking like WP:harassment at this point." which is just beyond what is reasonable, to turn around and baselessly accuse someone who has very politely asking you to stop harassing another editor of harassing *you* is completely unacceptable. IMO there is no compelling reason to ping someone who is not a participant in a conversation multiple times as VM did at the Village Pump, the first makes them aware of the discussion but what do the rest do besides harassment? This issue was also raised by others who noted that VM appeared to be seeking retribution against Chapmansh [69][70]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
|
- On the topic of retribution/retaliation VM's treatment of the author of a piece in the Signpost is also illustrative and I would like to enter it into evidence: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Recent research. Their greater than 40k bytes of text seem to go beyond simply getting their point across and bleeds over into attempting to denigrate, browbeat, and punish the author for writing the piece. This edit[73] in particular seems to be well over the line in terms of PA and civility, in particular the laundry list of behavior related links at the end separated by periods "WP:TENDETIOUS. WP:STONEWALL. WP:AGF. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. WP:CIR." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella behaviour during discussions
Talk:Mariusz Bechta#Sources would appear to fall into that same basket. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Lembit Staan
Summary at /Summary#Lembit Staan
|
---|
Disclosure: my previous user name was user:Staszek Lem. I renamed myself after a polite hint from the son of Stanislaw Lem. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I was thoroughly surprized to find me listed among the main Polish Holocaust revisionists on wikipedia :-(. In fact I have close to none contribution on the discussed subject. The only notable altercation I can remember is about the bio of Jan Żaryn. From this disproportionality I may guess who were the main "inside jobs" for the article of GK in question. |
Baseless accusation of me being a Holocaust revisionist
Summary at /Summary#Jan Żaryn
|
---|
The article of GK says "After still more back and forth in July, including a five-part Request for Comment by François Robere,Footnote233 Lembit Staan and GizzyCatBella overhauled the entire article, simply removing the overwhelming majority of the journalists’ and scholars’ observations on Żaryn’s extremism" - the "simply removing" statement is false. |
The fact is that the mentioned "still more back and forth in July" was a thorough criticism of the additions suggested by François Robere. On my part I analyzed the cited sources in detail and my major objections per WP:BLP were: (a) mistranslations, (b) too liberal interpretations of sources by wikipedians to the disfavor of the subject of the article, i.e., Jan Żaryn, and (c) what is more fascinating, the provably poor scholarhip of the sources cited which criticized Żaryn, making these sources unreliable. My arguments may be found in Talk:Jan_Żaryn#RfC:_Jan_Żaryn. If requested I can provide specific examples and more explanations. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
False / misleading statements about Żaryn's bio
Below is just nipicking, but I really have nothing more to say because I really did nothing wrong. The article of GK says I do agree with GK that the views (and the low quality of scholarship, and his engagement with that the "party line") of Żaryn are described poorly. But the phrasing "without being told of their baselessness" is a preconception indicative of poor scholarship of GK. For example, the bio says "Żaryn argues that the tensions between Jews and other nations in interwar Poland were mostly due to economic reasons" (well, that's not what exactly he wrote, but this is beside the point) - here is a book by Michael C. Steinlauf which basically says the same: the prominent position of the Jews in business in the interwar Poland was the main antisemitic argument that the Jews are "taking over" Poland. -- so much about "baselessness"; rather sloppy phrasing and poor scholarship, abundant in Zaryn writings. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by Gitz
Selective quotation from Gross at Jedwabne pogrom, tendentious editing and uncivil behaviour
Summarized at /Summary#Jedwabne pogrom. Analysis began before summary and can be found here.
|
---|
I know that what follows is a trifle compared to G&K's allegations and diffs, but at least it's recent and therefore maybe of interest. I consider this comment by Volunteer Marek and this edit to be tendentious and uncivil. The sequence leading to them:
|
Postwar Property Restitution
Prolonged edit war at History of the Jews in Poland between Feb-June 2019. Evidence of misrepresentation of sources, tendentious editing (WP:BATTLEGROUND) and disruptive editing (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).
- 16:37, 22 February 2019 Tatzref adds text on restitution of abandoned property to Jews in postwar Poland reporting that a simplified procedure was set in place, entailing minimal costs, the return of property proceeded smoothly, thousands of claims were successful, there were cases of Jews advancing fraudulent claims. Sources are hard to verify (on paper, in Polish) or fail verification (Icewhiz claims
the passage misrepresented a volume edited by Grabowski&Libionka to the point it was libelous
in t/p discussion). - 23-25 Feb. First edit war between Icewhiz and Yaniv (removing) and Piotrus, Volunteer Marek (VM) and Galassi (restoring) [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. Notable points:
- uncivil edit summary by Yaniv (
rv antisemitic vandalism
) - despite the explicit request [81], the sources were made available on the t/p by Tatzref two months later, on 21 April 2019, and the analysis by Piotrus and Icewhiz highlighted serious shortcomings, such as misrepresentation of sources (Grabowski-Libionka, eds., Klucze i Kasa, generally, spec. Skibińska, ivi), undue generalization of local microhistory's findings (Krzyżanowski, ivi), use of primary sources ("American Jewish Year Book", 1947-48) and (from 7 May 2019 onward) extensive reliance on a low-quality (biased or fringe, possibly SPS) source, Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? (Leopolis Press, 2012).
- 22:49, 25 February 2019 TonyBallioni protects.
- 25 Feb-1 March 2019. AE request against Tatzref (Icewhiz filer). No action taken. VM is T-ban'd for six months, François Robere is blocked for a week. T-ban for VM is overturned on 4 March.
- 12:23, 12 March 2019 Icewhiz
Remove content as it failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source, and was contradicted by available English RSes. Replace with content cited to academic English-language sources available online
. Text reports that Polish gov. placed new limitations on inheritance, de facto preventing restitution to Jews, property of killed Jews and "unproductive and parasite factors" was devolved to the state, lengthy proceedings when Jewish property was occupied by Poles, Jewish heirs often murdered when attempting to reclaim property, extremely small numbers of Jews got property back. Based on high-quality, easily verifiable sources: essay in "Jewish Culture and History" [82], books by CUP [83], Palgrave [84], OUP [85], Harvard UP [86]. - 04:28, 7 May 2019 Tatzref reverts Icewhiz and restores an expanded version of their own text, now extensively based on Golden Harvest .
- 7-20 May. Second edit war between Icewhiz, François Robere (FR) and K.e.coffman (reverting), and Piotrus, VM and My very best wishes (restoring) [87], [88], [89] and [90], [91], [92], [93] (incorporating/merging some of the two competing texts), [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101] and [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]. Notable points:
- Five reverts by VM and FR, four by Icewhiz, three by Piotrus.
- The analysis of texts and t/p discussion proves conclusively that Icewhiz's text is far better than Tatzref's "improved" text. See also FR's
a few more sources
in the collapsible box at 17:39, 12 May 2019 in the t/p discussion. - Dubious allegation of BLP vio in Tatzref's text made by FR and Icewhiz here, conclusive evidence of misrepresentation of source Krzyżanowski here and misrepresentation of source Skibińska here.
- After Icewhiz and FR on 15-16 May published 3,500 words demolishing Tatzref's sources (misrepresentation of Krzyzanowski and Skibińska), the first to reply in the t/p is VM with
This is a general level article. All kinds of details and speculations and academic arguments belong in dedicated article on the subject, not here
[109] (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). - 17 May-6 June, RSN thread on Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?, opened by Piotrus (see also here on t/p), followed by RfC opened by FR (result: not an RS, 9 July).
- 03:37, 20 May 2019 El C protects
This edit war has gone on for long enough
. 30-31 May AE request against VM (Icewhiz filer) referred to ArbCom. - 3-4 June. Final skirmish: 19:03, 3 June 2019 FR restores Icewhiz's text; 20:26, 3 June 2019 VM reverts
I'm sorry, but no such consensus was achieved. Can you please provide a link where this consensus you claim exists was formed? At RSN, the discussion tended to the opposite conclusion. Furthermore EVEN IF there are issues with one particular source that does not justify making OTHER mass deletions of sourced text or unsupported changes
; 02:51, 4 June 2019 K.e.coffman restores pointing to this discussion. Notable points: this and this comment by VM (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND).
Naliboki massacre, 2018-2019
With regard to Jewish partisans being responsible for the Naliboki massacre. Background knowledge: that is not supported by historical evidence, since basically no RS says that the massacre was made by Jewish partisans in general nor by the Bielski partisans in particular. Some eyewitnesses reported that the killings were carried out by Bielski partisans/by Jews, but subsequent historical research found no documentary evidence. In the 2000s Polish nationalists began blaming Jews, possibly as a balancing counterweight to the culpability of Poles in the Jedwabne pogrom.
Since February-March 2018 various edits from IP and Yaniv adding/removing claims about the Jewish ethnicity of the perpetrators; March 2018, Icewhiz removes FRINGE, UNDUE, BLPCRIME. This enough space for this error
[110].
- Notable point: extensive section on "Bielski partisans" (Jews). The section is nearly 50% of the text of the article. It doesn't say that the Jews were responsible (because it can't - no RS supports that claim) but is inherently, paradigmatically WP:UNDUE. It ends with the words
Nevertheless, the presence of several Jewish residents of Naliboki during the massacre has also been confirmed by their names.
VM reverts WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKE it are not valid reasons for POVing an article. Rmv spurious tags.
[111]; Icewhiz removes revert. Promotion of FRINGE theories. COATRACKing. NPOV. Use of non-RS (interim documents of an politically appointed investigative agency who did not choose to prosecute in the end
[112]; VM restores text [113] pointing to t/p discussion. T/p discussion shows that VM is aware of IPN investigation (in Polish) concluding there's no evidence they were Jewish, e.g. Please. Stop. Making. Shit. Up. The article DOES NOT promote any fringe theories. The article freakin' says that the Bielskis were NOT there, according to sources from the IPN
(13:56, 15 March 2018).
June 2018 Icewhiz removes The IPN has since revised its interim investigative reports - going to "this is one of many versions", onwards to "some witnesses said this, but didn't provide a basis for it", to omitting it all together in later reports
[114][115]; VM reverts while you can expand on the text, please don't just remove well sourced text
[116].
July 2018 Yaniv removes [117], IP address restores you are attempting to whitewash Jewish crimes by removing cited sources of perpetrators
[118]; Yaniv stop disrupting
[119]; VM restores because you can't claim "this is being discussed on talk page" when you yourself haven't made a single comment there (and are here just to revert on someone else's behalf)
[120]; Icewhiz removes Remove non rs (talk at hist club). Removing singling out of a single possible ethnicity in Soviet unit. Stable ver from 23 March is withoutthis
[121]; Yaniv includes text The IPN has said that there was no supporting documentation for this premise [Jew partisans did it]
+ sources [122] and removes text and sources involving Jews partisans [123]; Tatzref restores [124] and removes new content [125].
February 2019 IP’s well-argued edit summary I removed the very problematic generalizing statement that Jewish partisans were perpetrators. This is still very much a debated question and if individuals were involved it was part of a Soviet attack
[126]; VM restores [127] (no edit summary). VM keeps on restoring contents about Jews partisans being possible perpetrators of the massacre because... well, there were Jews among the partisans, weren't there? In fact, text also includes The IPN historian Kazimierz Krajewski reported that in the forest around Lida some 25% of the partisans were Jewish
. [128][129]
Last step in the saga: after G&K's article was published, new users, including me, landed on the page to clean it up. TrangaBellam and I got a little upset with Marcelus, who was still very interested in reconstructing the movements of the Jewish partisans in the forest, to the point that he made an edit war on this (GizzyCatBella concurring on the talk page). It ended up at AE but the article is now in decent conditions, and the reading of the section Unsubstantiated claims of Jewish perpetrators is quite instructive. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC); ; edited 23:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- One final point, sorry. G&K paper involves Piotrus in the Naliboki saga,
Various editors over the years tried to fix these edits, but they were brought back by Piotrus and by his like-minded colleague, Volunteer Marek
. This is unfair. G&K share these two diffs by Piotrus [130][131], which look well within AGF to me and, in the case of the second one, entirely harmless. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II, 2021-ongoing
- 18-27 Dec 2019: Buidhe creates History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II
- 27 Dec: Piotrus removes content about Polish supervisors beating Jewish forced laborers [132] and adds tags:"dubious" to source Farkash [133]; JoeZ451 (Icewhiz SP) reverts; t/p discussion, Piotrus argues that Farkash is a PhD student making exceptional claims per WP:REDFLAG; Buidhe edits toward consensus [134][135].
- 27 Dec 2019-2 Jan 2020: pre-GA review discussion between Buidhe, Piotrus and Icewhiz SP. Collaborative and policy-compliant discussion (apart from the SP), AGF is very easy. Piotrus is worried by content involving Polish responsability, doubts the quality of the sources, asks for corroboration in other sources, which he gets. Article changes [136], Farkash is no longer a "historian" and is used as RS with attribution.
- 6 Mar 2020: GAN, listed; 14 Sep 2020: FAC, promoted. Buidhe continues to work on the article in 2020–2021.
- 19 May 2021: edit war starts. VM removes text on local ethnic Poles and Home Army being hostile to Jewish fugitives because
not what Zimmerman says
[137] (see verbatim quotations from source Zimmerman p. 213 and p. 361) and removes simillar claims based on source Farkash becausethere was some discussions and redflag concerns on this back in Dec 19/Jan 20 but I don't think the edits were ever implemented
[138]; Buidhe restores:This is a featured article. Please get consensus for changes before implemeting them
[139]; VM reverts:if sources are misrepresented then perhaps it SHOULDN'T be a featured article
[140]; Buidhe restoresYour claims about the Zimmerman source are baseless, I just double-checked
[141]. VM adds tag:POV section [142]. GKB makes mininal inconsequential edit [143]. - 19 May: VM joins the t/p discussion,
I've tried to implement some of the suggestions and address the concerns made above [by Piotrus] ... However I was reverted by Buidhe with the usual "get consensus" edit summary ... User:Buidhe. Please stop edit warring ... stop using aggressive edit summaries ... I'm taking it up with the person who put the misrepresentation of the source in the article in the first place. You ... Please stop claiming "no consensus! no consensus!" ... use of graduate student's work for WP:REDFLAG claims. In fact you yourself acknowledged these concerns in a positive manner in your comments from December! So why are you reverting now?
- 23-24 May: edit war continues. VM removes
restoring edit per NO CONSENSUS
[144]; Buidhe restoresThe article passed FAC. The text, therefore, has consensus
[145]. GCB removesBuidhe, I’m sorry but WP:ONUS is on you
[146]; Buidhe restores [147]; VM removes [148]; DrKay restores [149]; GCB removes [150]; DrKay restores removing the contentious word "fugitives" [151]. - 25-26 May: Chumchum7 adds the tag:"citation needed" [152]; Z1720 removes [153]; Chumchum7 restores [154]; Chipmunkdavis removes [155].
- 26 May: Piotrus modifies contentious text [156] and adds Poles helping Jews [157]; Buidhe reverts with detailed edit summary [158]; Piotrus removes contentious text [159]; Buidhe reverts
If you insist on restoring pre-dispute versions, the correct version is the one that passed FAC. Don't make deletions without proposing on the talk page per WP:FAOWN.
[160]; VM revertsYou can’t quote WP:OWN as a justification for acting like you own the article!
[161] - 26 May. Ymblanter fully protects. 29-30 May. Virus Swatter (Icewhiz SP?) restores [162]; GCB reverts [163].
- 19 May-27 May 2021, during the edit war, long t/p discussion quotations requests, followed by longer discussions. Notable points: VM disputes that the text refers to "Jewish fugitives"; GCB:
Buidhe, could you clarify the major concern VM raised rather than reverting [12]. Such a reaction is not what's expected
; Buidhe explains she rephrased per COPYVIO and replaced "Jewish bands" with "Jewish fugitives" per WP:IMPARTIAL; VM disagrees:your statement is both inaccurate and cherry picked ... I would also appreciate it Buidhe, if you made an actual effort to discuss the disagreements and not only when you’re edit warring ... And let me point out, *again*, that some of these issues were already discussed previously back in Dec 19 ... don’t try to construct strawman here. I’m also not interested in your own original research
; GCB concurrs with VM; Chipmunkdavis joins and supports Buidhe:The sentences cited to Zimmerman 2015 213 & 361 seem a reasonable reflection of the content per the quote provided
; also Z1720 agrees:I think the above text is verified by the sources
andI do not understand why it was so important for this text to be removed before consensus was reached
; GCB iscompletely puzzled
by their analysis; Piotrus joinsWe should make it clear that per the source cited, the "fugitives" were stealing resources from the peasants
; also Chumchum7 adds to that side of the argument challenging the notion thatthe local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people
(they were hostile because Jews stole food and were communists); BuidheI hope you agree that we do not want to be reproducing zydokomuna stereotypes on Wikipedia
. Informal RfC proposed by GCB: instead of stable version
she wantsAccording to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants
From there on, the discussion becomes TL;DR: around the end of May, no less than 8 proposals were ready for an upcoming RfC. Eventually Z1720 and Buidhe very reluctantly agree to remove the quotation from Zimmerman 361 (12 and 18 June). VM agreesAccording to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources
No, looks good, thanks for all the hard work
. However, the text with Zimmerman p. 213 and Farkash is never restored. Buidhe has abandoned the article. She explains in an interview with Shira Klein [164]:I completely stopped editing in the topic area at all because of people deleting content for ideological reasons (this happened, for example, at "History of the Jews in Deblin and Irena during World War II" and the 2018 Polish Holocaust law). I found it was a waste of time to argue and my efforts were better spent in other areas where people didn't delete my work
- 31 March 2023. I
Restored version that passed as featured article (FAC). Text removed in May-June 2021 without consensus on the talk page
[165] VM reverts [166] and opens a discussion on the t/p with heading "Restarting old disputes" (ongoing).
Evidence presented by Volunteer Marek
"Contentiousness" of the topic area
Summarized at /Summary#Disruption in the topic area over time. Added to Analysis
|
---|
This is intended for the "other in scope" portion of the evidence. This area is one of the "contentious topics". But the fact is that for the past year it actually has NOT been contentious. The pattern is that the topic area has been quieting down since the imposition of the 500/30 restriction by the Arbitration Committee in May 2020 and especially since that was changed to extended confirmed protection in September 2021. To be sure, there was a lag, mostly due to the fact that it took some time for Icewhiz to burn through some of his "established" socks: [167] [168] [169] [170] (and at least a dozen more). In fact, most of the disputes between mid-2020 and early 2022 involved at least one Icewhiz sock, who were showing up to pour gasoline on a diminishing fire. Of course the relative quiet of 2021 was "punctured" by the December 2021 WCC case request. This too had heavy involvement from Icewhiz as he was emailing several individuals, including the filer. This was closed in February of 2022 and really ever since then there hasn't been much going on (this is both why all the stuff in the G&K paper is so old and also why most of the evidence being presented here is stuff that happened AFTER this paper was published and case opened). ![]() ![]() One way to see this is to look at the number of Poland-related (especially Holocaust in Poland) WP:AE reports by year. This is probably as good of a metric of "contentiousness" as you're going to get. Here is the number of AE reports by topic area in 2020 and 2021. In 2020 there were seven AE reports in this topic area, sixth highest out of all the topic areas subject of such reports. In 2021 there were only three, third lowest, ahead of only "Motorsports" and "pseudoscience". I am not including a graph for 2022 for the simple reason that there were exactly zero AE reports in this topic area last year. ![]() It also helps to look at the trends over time. Here is a graph of Poland related (not just Holocaust) AE cases by year, going back to 2011. There was good bit of controversy in 2011 but this was mostly unrelated to the Holocaust (it was mostly related to the also-indef-banned User:Russavia). Between 2012 and 2017 things quieted down. It was the arrival of Icewhiz which changed things, as can be clearly seen from the graph. Icewhiz filed a record number of AE reports in very short time [171] and indeed this was one of the Findings of Fact during the 2019 case [172] Beginning in 2022 and right up to the publication of the G&K paper, this was simply NOT a contentious area. The interventions by the Committee, as well as the work of several dedicated admins (yes, User:El_C, that does include you too) in blocking Icewhiz socks (even if sometimes with a bit too much of a delay) had done what it was suppose to. It worked. Of course this doesn't speak to the content and it may very well be the case that several articles need some serious fixin'. But as far as conduct goes - which is what this case was labeled as being about [173] - there just hasn't been much going on in recent past. (detailed data behind the graphs above available upon request) Volunteer Marek 06:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Editors driven away by harassment or attempted to be driven off
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:MyMoloboaccount stated that he left Wikipedia due to the harassment they were subject to because of editing this topic area. This is in addition to myself receiving death threats and rape threats against my children [175] and Piotrus being blackmailed in order to explicitly drive them away from this topic area [176]. The harassment of myself has been confirmed by ArbCom and the harassment of Piotrus has been confirmed by both the ArbCom and Trust & Safety. MyMoloboaccount's last comment involve a claim that as a result of the harassment they have suffered a stroke and their health deteriorated [177], the desperate plea for their family to be left alone [178], repeated several times "STOP HARASSING ME. YOU RUINED MY LIFE.LEAVE ME AND MY FAMILY ALONE. DELETE MY ACCOUNT. LEAVE ME ALONE." [179] [180] [181] [182], more desperate requests to have their Wikipedia page deleted [183] with an edit summary " I PROMISE NEVER TO WRITE ANYTHING ON WIKIPEDIA AGAIN. I won't be writing anything again. I promise. Please leave me alone." and again and again Given the kind of harassment I have experience myself, I find MyMoloboaccount's desperate claims credible. To put it simply, Icewhiz (and whatever associates he has) succeeded with them in what they have so far failed with me. Unlike some of the other users who claim they have been "driven away" from this topic area, yet still continue to edit it to this day (including participating in battleground behavior like filing WP:AE reports and edit warring), or those who actually never edited it in the first place, MyMoloboaccount's claim is credible because AFAICT they actually DID leave Wikipedia for good. User:Poeticbent has also been driven off by years of some extremely vile harassment, some of it going back to 2011 but that's old news, they're not here and I'm not sure if it's right to revisit it in their absence. Focusing on spurious and self serving claims of having been driven away (by editors who actually continue to edit) while ignoring the tremendous amount of abuse and grief that some other users have been subject to is, to say the least, fundamentally warped. Volunteer Marek 02:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Gitz6666 has made himself a party to this case and should be added as such
Summarized at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Gitz6666
|
---|
Unfortunately Gitz6666 subsequent conduct has confirmed my initial fears, as much as I wanted to believe otherwise. They both have started disputes with me on articles in this topic (I walked away from these as soon as I could), made accusations against me and appear to be going through old disputes I was involved in and re-inserting and re-igniting these. Given this context it is hard to avoid the impression that Gitz6666 came over to this topic area to pursue a grudge and try to "get back" at me for their topic ban in another topic area. The LAST thing this topic area needs is users who not only bring their WP:BATTLEGROUND approach in from other topic area, but who choose to participate in this topic area simply with the intention of griefing others. While obviously we don't sanction users for their conduct on other Wikipedias, I do think it is relevant that Gitz6666's behavior was likewise found to be problematic on both the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias and was blocked indefinetly on both for pretty much this type of behavior. For this reason at very least Gitz6666 should be added as a party to this case for carrying over disputes from other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 03:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
|
@User:Barkeep49, re: clashes with User:Elinruby - that is really another section all to itself. Just some instances: [193] (note this is Gitz6666's section heading, it was renamed by uninvolved editor to "Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666"), [194] ("sealioning" is a reference to Gitz6666's behavior), rest of the exchange in same thread: [195][196] [197] [198] [199] and this one [200] (ELinruby notices Gitz6666's tendency to claim to have "demonstrated" or "proved" something when they really haven't - they do that in their evidence here as well). Another thread [201] [202] [203] and here a pretty good description of Gitz6666's editing behavior. And then [204] Also on user talk pages [205] [206] There's a bunch more but for sake of space and not over-diff'in I'll just link to some of the interaction tool pages: [207] [208] [209] [210]
- I do want to stress here that Elinruby's comments and views in these discussion are very much inline what many other (uninvolved) users said (can list if needed), hence the topic ban for Gitz6666 in the end. Volunteer Marek 17:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Gitz6666 has taken upon themselves to restart old disputes
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f6/G6666unironicexampleofnotwikihounding.png/220px-G6666unironicexampleofnotwikihounding.png)
Now, Gitz6666 has decided to pour through my very old edits, apparently going back all the way to 2009 (see bottom of this version) and go and revert either my old edits or re-open old disputes I was involved in. With complete lack of self awareness, in the same page where they're pulling diffs of my edits from... 2009 they claim, unironically as best as I can tell, that "I've never wikihounded VM". Right. That's why they're digging out edits from 2009 and attempting to restart old disputes like here (note the false edit summary: the consensus was reached on that article with these comments (pleaseread them in order) [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] on June 19 2021. In fact Z1720 did awesome work here and mediated a reasonable compromise (include one part of source but not another because it didn't specifically refer to the localities of Dęblin and Irena) and this is actually how collaborative dispute resolution is supposed to work. Whatever they're doing now, they deserve a barnstar. Yet Gitz6666 thought it ok to come back to this article after two years and restore the version that was the subject of controversy. Why? It appears simply to be more of the "I'm going to get you back for the topic ban I got from Ukraine-Russia topic area" vendetta edits.
I plan on editing other examples to this list. Volunteer Marek 04:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Add: in this comment [218] Gitz6666 claims I think that it is fair to say that VM and I had no serious conflict in the HiP topic area
. This despite the fact that they've been going through my really old edits, making reverts and trying their best to restart very old disputes going back to at least 2018 if not 2009. The above is just one - but very illustrative - example. The reason we have not had "serious conflict in the HiP topic area" is simply because I have been ignoring these actions from them. Just because we have had no serious conflicts, doesn't mean that Gitz6666 isn't trying to currently start such conflicts (honestly it'd be best to nip it in the bud with a preventive sanction even while a case is ongoing).
IF *I* all of sudden started going through Gitz6666's edits from 2017 or 2018 or whatever and reverting them, while this case was ongoing and while I was presenting case against them, I would most certainly expect to be sanctioned (blocks supposed to be preventive etc.) - but of course I'm not the one doing that. Volunteer Marek 05:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Nihil novi
Ealdgyth mis-characterized a diff
Evidence not yet summarised; original concern not carried over to the /Summary but will be added if it does tie to future evidence/analysis |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Discussing an assertion by author Richard C. Lukas, Ealdgyth writes that Lukas' information had been unjustifiably "added [to the article] with Special:Diff/826962453 in 2018 by Nihil novi (talk · contribs)". Inspection shows that my entry (of 22 February 2018) had not at all involved the adding of information, Lukas' or anyone else's, but simply copyediting to improve the passage's English usage. Nihil novi (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by K.e.coffman
GizzyCatBella
Presenting some earlier diffs to show that the issues continue since the imposition/lifting of the topic ban.
Competence to edit in the topic area
Summarized at /Summary#Identifying high quality sources
|
---|
References
|
Using BLP as a cudgel
Summarized at /Summary#Identifying high quality sources
|
---|
|
Sidetracking discussions
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
|
Substance-free contributions
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
|
Battleground mentality
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
|
Summary
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
I understand that there is a language barrier, which I sympathize with, but I believe that GizzyCatBella is a net negative in the topic area, whose positive contributions, mostly consisting of reporting suspected socks, do not outweigh the negative ones. They include: biased editing; failure to properly use sources; and disruptive contributions to discussions. This crosses into the territory of general inability to productively and neutrally contribute to article development. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by GhostOfDanGurney
GizzyCatBella POV pushing & procedure issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi monuments in Canada
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
(For background, I don't dive into this topic area often; I have Deletion sorting/Canada on my watchlist, which is how I became aware of the below AfD).
Other parties in the discussion
|
Evidence presented by Tryptofish
Summary at /Summary#Use_of_Jan_T._Gross_as_a_source
|
---|
Another RSN discussionAfter I read another evidence section above, I looked and found another, albeit slightly earlier, discussion at WP:RSN that may be useful to look at, and it's not yet in the list of noticeboard discussions.
Discussion started by a WikiEd person, over a disputed source used by a student in Chapmansh's course. Seems mostly to be consensus that the source is reliable, but needs to be used with attribution, a position expressed by Piotrus: [266]. Icewhiz is there, arguing that the book is so mainstream that attribution is unnecessary. Chapmansh makes this comment: [267], which seems to me to be reasonable. The day before, she also said: [268] on the same topic, a diff already presented in Piotrus' evidence. This speaks to the POV of the G&K paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by François Robere
Background
I was active in the topic area (TA) during 2018-2021, after which I mostly participated in noticeboard discussions.
Summary of G&K
G&K make many observations that my experience suggests are correct, which I summarize below (page numbers in parentheses). I can provide other examples as needed, but I encourage the committee to review the already-extensive evidence presented in past noticeboard discussions, which were never considered by admins as part of a bigger whole.
The historical narrative in Poland
- The "traditional" Holocaust narrative in Poland has been that of morality and heroism (3).
- The 1980's have seen some progress with this narrative, including Jan Błoński's famous Biedni Polacy patrzą na getto ("The Poor poles Look at the Ghetto"), and it was further shaken in the early 2000's, with Jan T. Gross's Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, and by the many publications that followed in its footsteps. By the end of the decade the "traditional" narrative has been largely superceded, but not without some backlash from (primarily) Polish nationalist circles and "fringe academics" (3-5).
- Poland's national remembrance organization, the Instytut Pamięci Narodowej (IPN), or "Institute of National Remembrance", has "temporarily embraced research on the most painful subjects of Polish-Jewish history" during that time, before shifting to the right in later years, partly because of the right-wing government's efforts to politicize the subject (4-5).
- One of the highlights of this politicization has been the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, which "instilled an atmosphere of fear, as it not only delegitimized findings like Gross's, but potentially exposed scholars, educators, teachers, and the reading public to civil and criminal charges" (5-6).
Wikipedia's content
The "traditional" Polish Holocaust narrative remains relevant on en.Wiki (6):
- The number of Polish victims of the Nazi occupation and the Holocaust has been inflated (7-8)
- Polish collaboration with the Germans has been minimized (9)
- The number of Poles who aided Jews, and the prevalence of such aid, have both been inflated (8-9, 13)
- The role of the underground movement in providing aid to Jews has been exaggerated (9-10)
- The danger from the Germans to Poles who provided aid to Jews has been emphasized, while the danger from fellow Poles - and by extension the prevalence of antisemitic perceptions among them - has been minimized (10-13)
- Poles' role in the Kielce pogrom has been minimized (13-14)
- Jews' wealth has been exaggerated (14-15)
- Jews' collaboration with the Germans has been oversimplified and overemphasized (15-17)
- Żydokomuna myths have been repeated (17)
- Jews' role in the death of Poles has been wildly exaggerated (17-20)
- Contemporary antisemitism in Poland has been minimized, for example in Jew with a coin (20-22)
- Richard Lukas's The Forgotten Holocaust has been overused (22-23)
- There were significant efforts by editors to both use and defend sources such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (23-27), Ewa Kurek (27-28, 48), Glaukopis (29-31), "Mark Paul" (31-34) and Peter Stachura (36-38)
- Editors repeatedly downplayed, or even denigrated reputable scholars such as Jan T. Gross (35), Christopher Browning (35), Berel Lang (35) and Antony Polonsky (36-38)
Editors' conduct
- Editors such as Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, who spend considerable time on-Wiki, understand the system well and have considerable "social capital", are exceedingly difficult to challenge - especially when they back each other (40-41)
- Piotrus and VM have "purged" criticisms of the IPN (40 / Special:PermaLink/1100791296#Mass removal of criticisms)
- They and others have prevented a short, neutrally-worded paragraph about property restitution from being included in The Holocaust in Poland (41 / Special:PermaLink/1092871024#Survey)
- Several of these editors seem to be communicating off-Wiki (41-42 / WP:EEML)
- Piotrus, VM, MyMoloboaccount and My very best wishes were members of the EEML (42 / WP:EEML)
- Piotrus has offered other editors to communicate by email (42 / Special:PermaLink/843149146#WP:EMAIL, Special:PermaLink/863373791#WP:EMAIL)
- Piotrus has canvassed on pl.Wiki (42 / AN thread)
- Some disagreements between editors are no doubt honest, while others appear "tactical" (42-43)
- VM, with others, has frustrated several months' worth of attempts to improve Jan Żaryn (43-44, 50)
- Incivility in the TA is common (44-45)
- VM uses profanities and personally attacks other editors with zeal (45-46[1])
- On some articles, VM's contributions constitute little more than deleting other editors' additions (46 / xtools, xtools)
- Editors have been worn down and driven away from the TA again and again (46-47 / Ealdgyth, Ermenrich, SlimVirgin)
- Admins are not exempt from these stresses either (49 / JzG, Barkeep49, Ymblanter, Ymblanter)
- "Content" and "conduct" issues, particularly those covered by the essay, overlap (49-51)
- The community has failed to address problems of subtle POV-pushing and source misrepresentation in the TA, while sometimes sanctioning those who report them, leading to a general aversion from even trying to (50-53). As Elinruby put it: "polite distortions of the truth seem to prevail in wiki proceedings over attempts to defend it that also express irritation"[269]
- While the sourcing restriction was an improvement, the previous ARC did not resolve the TA's problems (51-52)
- T-bans have been lifted for the wrong reasons more than once (53-54)
- Joe Roe and El C deserve credit for realizing the effect their and others' attitudes had on the TA (54-55)
- Icewhiz's "socking" caused various problems in the TA, one being that it opened an avenue of attack against other editors as alleged "socks" (55-56)
References
- ^
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899921948
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899919573
- "Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 2," September 26, 2016, Special:PermaLink/1079703699#!votes
- "Talk:JanŻaryn/Archive1," June 8, 2021, Special:PermaLink/1070448193#RFC_on_François_Robere's_second_proposal:_Views_and_lead
- "Talk:Koniuchy massacre/Archive3," November 15, 2018, Special:PermaLink/914543764#Religious_prejudice
- "Talk:Koniuchy massacre/Archive3," November 21, 2018, Special:PermaLink/914543764#Another_false_edit_summary_by_Icewhiz._Another_false_and_nonsensical_accusation_of_BLP_vio_by_Icewhiz._While_he_commits_BLP_vio_himself
- "Talk:Home Army/Archive 4," May 2, 2018, Special:PermaLink/1091452685#AK_units_hunting_down_groups
- "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 181," November 27, 2021, Special:PermaLink/1064391779
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899925262
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899921948
- "User talk:Volunteer Marek," August 3, 2021, Special:PermaLink/1036971518#SPI
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248," February 2019, Special:PermaLink/1079521824#Statement_by_VM
- "Talk:Nalibo-ki_massacre," 13:48, March 15, and 05:22, March 18, 2018, Special:PermaLink/1026103883
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.