→Evidence presented by Jehochman: collapse |
→Grabowski and Klein's views of other scholars: collapse, not in scope |
||
Line 1,311: | Line 1,311: | ||
===Grabowski and Klein's views of other scholars=== |
===Grabowski and Klein's views of other scholars=== |
||
{{hat|Issues of scholarly standing are out of scope.}} |
|||
Grabowski and [[User:Chapmansh]]'s dismissive views of certain scholars are not universally shared: |
Grabowski and [[User:Chapmansh]]'s dismissive views of certain scholars are not universally shared: |
||
Line 1,320: | Line 1,321: | ||
* Grabowski and Chapmansh deplore editors citing [[Marek Jan Chodakiewicz|Marek Chodakiewicz]], specifically works he published in 2003, 2004 and 2012. They note Chodakiewicz has made homophobic comments in recent years. They do not mention that Chodakiewicz did most of his academic publishing in the 1990s and 2000s, served as a [https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/president-bush-appoints-13-members-to-united-states-holocaust-memorial-coun Presidential appointee] on the [[United States Holocaust Memorial Council]] from 2005 to 2010 and per this [[Institute of World Politics|IWP]] [https://www.iwp.edu/press-releases/2010/05/11/dr-chodakiewicz-recognized-by-u-s-holocaust-memorial-council/ press release] received an award from the Council in 2010. However disagreeable one may find recent comments by Chodakiewicz (and Kurek is a similar case), it is hard to argue that works he published twenty or thirty years ago, on the strength of which he was appointed to the academic body overseeing the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, should now retroactively be considered beyond the pale. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
* Grabowski and Chapmansh deplore editors citing [[Marek Jan Chodakiewicz|Marek Chodakiewicz]], specifically works he published in 2003, 2004 and 2012. They note Chodakiewicz has made homophobic comments in recent years. They do not mention that Chodakiewicz did most of his academic publishing in the 1990s and 2000s, served as a [https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/president-bush-appoints-13-members-to-united-states-holocaust-memorial-coun Presidential appointee] on the [[United States Holocaust Memorial Council]] from 2005 to 2010 and per this [[Institute of World Politics|IWP]] [https://www.iwp.edu/press-releases/2010/05/11/dr-chodakiewicz-recognized-by-u-s-holocaust-memorial-council/ press release] received an award from the Council in 2010. However disagreeable one may find recent comments by Chodakiewicz (and Kurek is a similar case), it is hard to argue that works he published twenty or thirty years ago, on the strength of which he was appointed to the academic body overseeing the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, should now retroactively be considered beyond the pale. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Evidence presented by Barkeep49== |
==Evidence presented by Barkeep49== |
Revision as of 20:04, 7 April 2023
Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)
Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023
Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk), Firefly (Talk), MJL (Talk), ToBeFree (Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk), Primefac (Talk), Wugapodes (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.
Evidence phases
- During the first evidence phase all evidence that relates to the scope of the case will be accepted. For the first week after the case opens, evidence may be submitted for the purpose of adding another party to the case.
- During the second evidence phase, only evidence that rebuts other evidence (see Rebuttals below) or which answers a question posed by an arbitrator will be allowed. Any evidence which does not meet this standard may be removed, collapsed, closed, or otherwise addressed by an Arbitrator or clerk without warning.
Submitting evidence
- Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
- You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
- Evidence found to be pertinent by an Arbitrator or Clerk will be added to the /Summary page and collapsed here
- Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.
Word and diff limits
- The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.Evidence that has been summarized and collapsed does not count against an editor's word or diff limits
- If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
- Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.
Supporting assertions with evidence
- Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
- Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.
Rebuttals
- The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
- Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Analysis page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.
Expected standards of behavior
- You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
- Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
- Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
- Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
- Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
- Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
For additional information and context about the evidence phase, please see the Frequently Asked Questions
For questions or requests by the Arbitrators please see this section on the Analysis page.
Evidence presented by Adoring nanny
Having more editors is good for this topic area
Summarized at /Summary#Naliboki massacre
|
---|
In particular, the article Naliboki massacre was vastly improved by a recent series of edits by editors with different points of view. Version as of mid February[1]. Current version (March 13)[2]. The old version was borderline antisemitic. I don't see such issues with the current version, though others may differ. The old version left the question of the participation of Jewish partisans a bit mysterious, with a few hints of yes, and somewhat-stronger hints of no. The current version makes it clear that the allegation is unproven at best and probably false. The old version contained useless info about a commission not having completed its work as of years ago. The new version summarizes what they did. The collaboration was required. For example, I certainly could not have done it on my own as I don't speak Polish. That said, the differing points of view of the various editors, much of which involves issues I don't understand, is severe enough that it resulted in an AE thread[3] with some mild sanctions. Certainly some people were less than happy with each other. I do wish everyone would calm down. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by Ealdgyth
Introduction
|
---|
(2285 words) Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
First, a note of warning. I'm up to 28K words documenting inaccuracies that I've found in our articles on the Holocaust (not just in Poland, but also some of the more general topics) (and still working on it - I've only gotten about halfway through Treblinka extermination camp where I'm comparing much of the article to the sources and discovering that much doesn't support things - I've also done a lighter look at Extermination camp, Judenrat, and Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). Much of it is source-integrity issues and in a lot of cases, it's almost impossible to figure out who originally added the problem because so much reverting has gone on over the years as well as shuffling of text around without making sure the source citations stayed with things. So some of my evidence will be of a generalized nature - just showing how skewed or inaccurate our articles are without necessarily trying to "pin blame". I'll try to keep the evidence to the worst cases - rather than drive you all as insane as I'm feeling with discovering this massive problem. (Yes, I'm keeping a list of all the errors I'm finding and will fix them as the case concludes) (This section |
|
Summarized at Bibliography
|
---|
|
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Added 30 March 2023From Extermination camp - my full audit of the article is at User:Ealdgyth/Extermination camp audit. Note that I attempt to try to figure out who originally did the edit, but I do not claim to be an expert on diff excavation and I could be wrong on some of the "who did this" parts. The "this isn't supported"/"this is wrong"/"this isn't a reliable source" stuff though, I am confident of. I hadn't originally planned to introduce evidence relating to Poeticbent, but with the introduction of a long list of Icewhiz socks, I figured banned/retired editors were fair game.
|
Evidence presented by El_C
Volunteer Marek BLPCRIME vio (March 6, 2023)
Summarized at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Volunteer Marek
|
---|
During very lengthy discussion at Gitz6666's talk page, a discussion which I had noticed in passing and did not read in full, Volunteer Marek (VM) violated WP:BLPCRIME using shocking language (17:55, 5 March 2023 — admins only), which I immediately (Redacted) and revdeleted (22:22, 6 March 2023 — admins only). No further action (or a recommendation for one) was taken by me save for that urgent revdel, citing specifically this impending case. |
GizzyCatBella AE misuse (March 3, 2023)
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving GizzyCatBella
|
---|
A bit of background. A little while ago, new ArbCom member, GeneralNotability, dropped by my talk page to ask: Now, consider GizzyCatBella (GCB) at WP:AE#TrangaBellam (permalink). GCB is (or at least should be) very familiar with the AE board: as a filer, as a party, as a participant, as an appellant, etc. Her misuse in this AE complaint —a complaint featuring TrangaBellam, a content opponent of GCB's (I think?)— was that GCB had used double the number of diffs that's allowed: +40 instead of the max of 20 (05:46, 3 March 2023). The thing is I did actually get to it fast, stating only a couple of hours later that: |
Volunteer Marek disparages arbitrator Wugapodes at the WPO (March 20, 2023)
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The status of Wikipediocracy discussions as pertaining to this case, and their possible role as evidence, remains ambiguous. What isn't ambiguous, however, is VM using that venue today to publicly disparage arbitrator Wugapodes. The post in question reads (in full):
But at least it's "out in the open rather than happening behind the scenes"... Anyway, so are we pretending it's a secret, or, what are we doing? El_C 11:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
Volunteer Marek attempts to antagonize me at the WPO (March 23, 2023)
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In response to my above evidence submission, VM now seems to be attempting to antagonize me at the WPO (where I do not have an account). Normally, I could not care less, but I submit that him doing so in the midst of an active arbitration case to which he is party, is bad form. The post in question reads (in part):
For the record, I am neither "mad" nor do I wish to "police" the WPO, but again, I'd challenge that an active arbitration case to which he is party is different. El_C 04:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by GizzyCatBella
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving GizzyCatBella
|
---|
Responding to the accusation of misconduct (not trimming my diffs at AE) by EC_I:
|
About current threats broadcasted by the IP 199.7.159.46 ( see Evidence presented by LEvalyn): I addressed those recent joe-job attempts here including IP 199.7.159.46 (see my remarks at Maybe semiprotect that Signpost talk page): Background: I was followed on Wikipedia and harassed by Icewhiz's sock puppets for the last 3 years. (Icewhiz doesn't know my real identity, thank God) His sock-puppets (or sock-puppets of his pals) acted to be me in the past. That was the latest attempt. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
|
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) |
Icewhiz socks
Summarised at /Summary#François Robere and Icewhiz
|
---|
Between 2019 and 2022, when Icewhiz was socking extremely laboriously. Francois Robere tag-teamed with him in both Holocaust in Poland, Israel-Palestine and other topic areas. Below is a list of tag-teaming and coordinated editing by Francois Robere, Icewhiz and related sock-puppets - shown on supportive interactions (less than two weeks, but usually much shorter)
Sock-puppet number 1 called Astral Leap (AL)Status - Checkuser block Interaction tool: [5]
Sock puppet number 2 called AstuteRed (AR)Status - Blocked as suspected sock-puppet of Icewhiz Interaction tool - [11]
Sock number 3 called Bob not snob (BnotS)Status - ArbCom blocked Interaction tool : [13]
Sock number 4 called I Dream of Maple (IDOM)Status - Blocked as sock-puppet of Icewhiz Interaction tool : [14]
Sock-puppet number 5 called 11Fox11 (1F1)Edits only occasionally the Holocaust in Poland topic area but nevertheless, Francois Robere collaborated and tag-teamed with them in this and other topic areas. Status - Checkuser block Interaction tool : [15]
Sock number 6 called KasiaNL (KNL)Status - Blocked as suspected sock-puppet of Icewhiz Interaction tool: [17]
Sock number 7 called Nyx86 (N86)Status - Checkuser block Interaction tool with FR: [18]
Sock number8 called JoeZ451 (JoeZ)Status: Blocked as Icewhiz or someone working with them Interaction tool with FR: [19]
Sock number 9 called Eostrix (EX)Status - Blocked by ArbCom (it was Icewhiz). This was the account that nearly became administrator. Interaction tool with FR: [20]
Sock-puppet number 10 called GeshemBracha (GB)Status - ArbCom block. Outside the Holocaust in Poland topic area. Interaction tool with FR - [21]
Sock-puppet number 11 IP 176.227.241.20 (176IP)Status - Blocked for socking with proxies Interaction tool with FR: [22]
Sock-puppet number 12 called Viking Drummer (VD)Status - Blocked for LTA Interaction tool with FR: [23]
There is more but I think the above illustrates the problem clearly enough. I'll follow up with something else if the time allows. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Answering Primefac's question - I couldn't find a single instance where FR and Icewhiz/socks disagreed. Only instances of supporting/cooperating with Icewhiz or other socks. They even stated at one point that they don't care if the material has been added by the Icewhiz sock and cooperated with Icewhiz's sock puppet called 007Леони́д see --> [25] or
or
[27] (Aug. 2021) or |
Summarized at François Robere and Volunteer Marek
|
---|
|
François Robere BLPs violations
Accusing BLPs of antisemitism:
- 1-Nov. 10, 2019 [30]
Tatzref has repeatedly invoked antisemitic sources, such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz
- 2 - Nov. 10 2019 More accusations that BLP are antisemitic, although semi-attributed to outside sources. Semi because no references for those claims are provided in that diff.
- 3 - Nov. 26, 2019 Describes BLP as
completely fucking nuts
- 4 - Jan. 21, 2020 Describes BLP scholar as
discredited
anddisgraced scholar
- 5 - Jan. 21, 2020 Applying own description of BLP as
..formerly a reputable expert
with no sources for that statement
- 6 - Jan. 28, 2020 Doubles up on the above with an edit summary (BLP)
fired in disgrace
without providing a source that says fired in disgrace
- 7 - Jul. 6, 2021 BLP Violation -
comparing Kurek to the Holocaust denier
- GizzyCatBella🍁 12:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Background to demonstrate François Robere’s previous troubling history
François Robere block history
- 1 - Mar. 2018 - blocked for 72h for edit warring at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II.
- 2 - Feb. 2019: blocked for personal attacks for one week
- 3 - Jul. 31, 2021 blocked for 48h for violating an interaction ban with me (GizzyCatBella)
François Robere administrative warning history
- 1- 26 Dec. 2017 warning
If you continue to be belligerent and personalise disputes, you will most likely be blocked or banned.
- 2 - 27 Feb. 2019 warning
As discussed in more detail at AE, I am warning you not to cast aspersions against others without convincing evidence.
- 3 - 23 Sept. 2019 personal attack warning -
..stop attacking other editors, as you did on Dealing with racism on Wikipedia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing.
- 4 - Oct. 6, 2019 warned
to dial it back a lot regarding accusing others of anti-semitism
- 5- Apr. 30, 2020 warned
not to use SPI as a venue for continuing content area disputes.
(Icewhiz sock puppet investigation) - 6 - Oct. 18, 2022 - warning
You know not to make personal attacks .. Keep it up and don’t be surprised if you get blocked.
for these edits were FR accused VM of harassment --> [31] and [32]
Note Levivich comment that confirms that FR was redirecting the page to possibly attack VM -->[33] - Can't blame him for edit warring that back to a redirect, he'd have his own section in that article.
- GizzyCatBella🍁 06:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by LEvalyn
Battleground mentalities create a shockingly toxic editing environment
Summarized at /Summary#The Forgotten Holocaust
|
---|
My primary interest is in historical books. Following a request for input at WP Books, I went to the talk page for The Forgotten Holocaust. I made a small number of comments offering what I think were fairly unobjectionable suggestions, based on my expertise with book articles: [34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. 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 [41] 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",[42] 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.[43] 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.[44] GCB's hanging offence was a single sentence suggesting that the article be expanded! In my opinion, LEvalyn did not identify any behavioral problems and the talk about driving people away is silly. Zerotalk 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence from Grabowski and Klein
Here I'll provide a few examples of charges made in the published essay of Grabowski and Klein (G&K) and the Wikipedia edits they refer to. My bolding throughout.
Case Study #1. The charge that editors promote Nazi stereotypes.
Summarised generally at /Summary#Article and response with similar evidence at the response by Piotrus
|
---|
From G&K:
Looking at the website we find it is a list of difficulties Polish Jews faced in hiding among gentiles, cited to Tec's book.[2] (Tec survived the Holocaust by posing as a Christian.) The relevant item is:
The history of this passage started when Jacurek copy-pasted the whole sentence from the website.[1] Moonriddengirl later flagged it as a copyvio, to which Piotrus responded by paraphrasing "physical characteristics of curly black hair, dark eyes, dark complexion, a long nose, were in special jeopardy" as "specific physical characteristics were particularly vulnerable". That's it, the whole story. Not only was Piotrus just performing a simple policy-demanded clean-up, he was actually removing the details of the stereotype. Moreover, both before and after the edit the sentence clearly does not say that Jews have particular physical characteristics, but only that Jews with those characteristics were in special danger. So there is nothing in the editorial sequence to support the title charge. There remains the question of compliance to the source. Here is the passage in Tec's book that the website sentence comes from:
This is not a great match to G&K's claim that "Tec never said that Jews looked different". But instead they quoted a different passage that appears to support them and introduces an explicit German connection. Let's look at the text immediately following the part they quoted:
In other words, Tec is just saying that many Jews could be identified by Poles but not by Germans. So that doesn't support G&K's claim that "Tec never said that Jews looked different" either. In summary, the charge is not supported either by the sequence of edits or by comparison with the source. |
Case Study #2. Explicit accusations of antisemitism
Summarised generally at /Summary#Article and response
|
---|
On page 8 of G&K's essay there is a summary of their overall thesis. I'll quote the part I want to comment on:
"Money-hungry Jews controlled or still control Poland" is indeed a classical antisemitic trope, and it would be a disgrace if Wikipedia promoted it. So we should look at G&K's evidence. However, G&K provide no example of this trope appearing in Wikipedia. I have been unable to locate one either. Since the trope as a whole does not appear, we can look for the individual parts and leave aside the question of whether it is valid to combine them.
References
|
Evidence presented by Piotrus
Response to LEvalyn
Moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Analysis and to be included in /Summary#The_Forgotten_Holocaust
|
---|
First, I want to thank LEvalyn for joining the discussion (the more editors become involved in related discussions, the better), and express my sadness that she has been subject to harassment by an IP. Second, I'd like to note that I indeed misundertood the invokation of WP:TNT and at first thought some editors are suggesting blanking this entire article without a discussion, because I've seen such issues occasionally brought up at AfD where I am a frequent contributor (at AfD, in my experience, invoking TNT means saying "this is a total mess, delete it, nothing to rescue"). Misunderstandings happen, but I believe I was respectful and polite, and when my misunderstanding was explained (that concerns were related to a particular section, not the entire article), I did not press the issue. Third, I tried to create a friendly-to-newcomers atmosphere by explicitly inviting people to make edits [45] |
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 [46]. --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 ([47]). This deserves a barnstar, not being a party to this clustercase. TrangaBellam has recently created four articles related to historiography of the topic (Glaukopis, Mariusz Bechta, Tomasz Greniuch and Marcin Zaremba). They are not perfect but we are better of with having them than with red links. I could go on, but the point is simple: while some debates might be a bit overheated, Wikipedia is improving. The solution to all problems is AGF, not A-boards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC) |
Off-wiki activities causing damage to Wikipedia require a response
Not summarised yet; slightly out-of-scope but could be used in tandem with future evidence. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
While I have, as stated above, no concerns about on-wiki behavior by any party, I do have concerns about off-wiki behavior. Specifically, I believe that Champansh’s essay violates our policies on off-wiki harassment (also seen here). Additional policies of concern include WP:Aspersions, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. While it was published off-wiki, per past ArbCom’s statements of principles, it is relevant. Framing this with the language from our policies: I feel “threatened and intimidated” by how her essay discusses me; I believe that the essay’s goal is to “make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for [me] and to undermine, frighten, or discourage [me] from editing”, and that it “was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community” (for example, the time I spent on this ArbCom case means time I spent not improving the encyclopedia, and the resulting media coverage has reduced my motivation to engage with the project). This is related to the previously submitted evidence that the goal of site-banned editor Icewhiz is to harass volunteers (myself, VM and others) to drive us away from this project. I want to note that:
Therefore, I submit that if we are not finding the claimed With regards to the numerous instances the essay violates our policies. First it makes many serious accusations such as repeated claims of Holocaust distortion and labelling me and others “distortionists”. I enumerate a number here (since they were made off-wiki, no diffs can be linked, and quoting them fully would put me over the evidence word count). |
Summarized at Article and response
|
---|
Second, for examples of factual errors concerning me and/or other editors, including a claim already judged as false by previous ArbCom case, see: 2 Case of Halibutt (Halibutt is accused of deliberatery introducing a hoax whereas Vorthax is more likely the culprit here), 6.3 False claim that I inserted criticism into Polonsky's biography (I did not), 14 Case of Poeticbent's photo (repeating a claim ‘’already’’ analyzed and discarded by ArbCom in 2019: Icewhiz interpreted an apparent error by Poeticbent as a deliberate hoax), 7.1 On the false claim of "Embellishing Kurek" (I just added a mixed review of her work to her biography), 8.3 On claim that Muszyński article "authored by Piotrus, continues to read as a list of accolades" (the stub I created listed one state award, and had a much longer section on a controversy surrounding him) or 17-18 Selective quotations (which suggest I defend/endorse some fringe scholars where in fact I am cautioning against their use). Third, the essay portrays me (and others) in a very one sided way, omitting numerous examples of where I criticized individuals described by the essay authors as nationalist/far-right, or where I praised/used as a source individuals described by the authors as mainstream scholars (even Grabowski himself), or where I added content that goes against the “heroic Polish narrative” or broadly defined “distortion”. See: 6.4 On omission of evidence that I and others cited or praised Polonsky and other scholars the authors accuse us of discrediting, 6.5 On omission of evidence that I and others criticized Kurek and other scholars the authors accuse us of idealizing, 7.2 On omission of evidence that I criticized Kurek, 8.2 On omission of evidence that I criticized Muszyński, 13.2 On omission of my additions of Grabowski's 2020 newspaper comments to talk pages of articles, and section 27 on ommission of content I've created that contradicts said "narrative" or "distortion". |
Summarised at #Summary of evidence involving Chapmansh
|
---|
Addendum: Champansh was active in this topic area in the past, for example making comments in discussions [50], [51], [52] and editing articles [53]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC) |
I've also significantly limited my editing in this topic area
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Piotrus
|
---|
Inspired by VM's analysis, I decided to look at my actvity on WP by topic area using this tool (spreadsheet available to Arbitrators upon request). I've analyzed three periods (from February each year): 2013-2017 (pre-Icewhiz era), 2017-2021 (Icewhiz and his socks era), 2021-2023 (post-Icewhiz, pre-case era), counting all articles I've made 6+ edits on, and grouping them into 1) World War II history of Poland, 2) the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed, 3) both and 4) others. Group 3 (both) contains articles that are in groups 1) and 2). In 2013-2017 I've made 6+ edits (5580 total) to 374 articles. Out of those, 25 articles concerned Polish WW2 topics (390 edits), 8 concerned Polish-Jewish history (92 edits), and 6 (63 edits) concerned both. Percentage wise, that's about 7%, 2% and 1.5%. Approximately 7% of my edits concerned one of those topic areas, while 93% of my edits concerned other topics. In 2017-2021 I've made 6+ edits (5580 total) to 434 articles. Out of those, 25 articles concerned Polish WW2 topics (390 edits), 8 concerned Polish-Jewish history (92 edits), and 6 (63 edits) concerned both. Percentage wise, that's about 32%, 28% and 18%. pproximately 40% of my edits concerned one of those topic areas, while 60% of my edits concerned other topics. In 2021-2023 I've made 6+ edits (4284 total) to 253 articles. Out of those, 24 articles concerned Polish WW2 topics (544 edits), 18 concerned Polish-Jewish history (516 edits), and 15 (425 edits) concerned both. Percentage wise, that's about 11%, 10% and 8%. Approximately 13% of my edits concerned one of those topic areas, while 87% of my edits concerned other topics. And that 13% is significantly related to my already wrapped up project of getting a set of articles to Good Article/A-class level (Witold Pilecki, The Volunteer (book)) or close (The Auschwitz Volunteer, Fighting Auschwitz). What does it mean? I call it the "Icewhiz effect". He was pushing his POV on many articles, sometimes fixing them (yes, we cannot deny that), sometimes damaging them (ditto - in fact, undoing this one massive attempt at disruption is what accounts for much of my editing in this topic area in 2021-2022). Icewhiz's extremly high activity combined with his very strong POV drew a number of editors into this topic area, resulting in some good content improvement, but due to his "white/black" true believer attitude, this made the area very contentious (a WP:BATTLEGROUND, see also my essay on the radicalization of users). Instead of collaborative editing, there was a lot of partisan back-and-forth. And once Icewhiz and his army of socks got mostly chased away, things are going back to normal (meaning, in other words, nobody is editing this topic area much, hence the enduring errors that Ealdgyth noted and nobody is fixing). Most editors who tried to fix them burned out and either left the project or moved on (or back) to other, less stresfull topic areas (for me that's stuff like science fiction, sociology and history of Polish literature, for example). For the project, it remains an interesting question whether Icewhiz-like individuals and editing style generates value (he drew people in, resulting in short-term content improvement due to intensive and controversial editing, but also burned people out, some - from the topic area, some - from Wikipedia entirely). But I digress. The point of my evidence here is that, like for everyone else, the "Icewhiz effect" has significantly decreased my motivation to edit this topic area (in particular, WWII Polish-Jewish topics; I am still unclear why regular, milhist-focused "World War II history of Poland" is within scope here - I don't think a single piece of evidence has been presented related to any content issues in that broader topic area). For better or worse, I don't expect things to change in the foreseeable future, since, bottom line, it is a very thankless job to try to improve those topics, as recent events have demonstrated. As far as I am concerned, others can tackle this (sorry, Ealdgyth). I have other stuff to do, where my activity is not going to result in serious accusations and off-wiki harassment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC) What I do around hereAddendum to the statistics on my contribution (quality-levels). Within this topic area, my contributions included (since 2017): 3 A-class articles (as assessed by WP:MILHIST: Battle of Westerplatte, Battle of Hel, Witold Pilecki), 8 Good Articles (the three A-class ones plus Bombing of Wieluń, Stanisław Kot, Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz, The Volunteer (book). Róża Maria Goździewska) and a few dozen DYKs (list available on my userpage). Outside this TA, in that time period, I wrote other 16 GAs and ~150 DYKs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Since 2021 I've created 183 new articles, out of which ~23 articles are in the topic area of this case: Modernity and the Holocaust (March 2023), Poland's Holocaust (February 2022), The Eagle Unbowed (January 2023), Stanisław Burhardt-Bukacki (December 2022), Detached Unit of the Polish Army (December 2022), Trail of Hope (November 2022), Story of a Secret State (September 2022), Japan and the Holocaust (September 2021), FDR and the Jews (June 2021), Rescuers: Portraits of Moral Courage in the Holocaust (June 2021), List of Chief Rabbis of Poland (May 2021), Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz (May 2021), Wacław W. Soroka (April 2021), Róża Maria Goździewska (April 2021), Jerzy Pertek (March 2021), Krzysztof Komorowski (March 2021), Fighting Auschwitz (March 2021), Józef Kwaciszewski (March 2021), The Auschwitz Volunteer (March 2021), Marco Patricelli (March 2021), Wiesław Wysocki (March 2021), The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 (January 2021), Święciany massacre (January 2021). I believe none of these have been "controversial" (tagged with {{npov}} or similar, or subject to edit warring). Several have been DYKed or even GAed since. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC) What I don't do around hereI don't get into trouble. Since my "tourbulent wiki-youth" aka the WP:EEML case of 2009 (of which this 2011 incident was an aftermath of) I don't believe I have broken any rules of our project, been subject to any sanction nor received any logged warning ([54]) or such outside the singular indicent in February 2021, which resulted in a month topic ban. A single instance of bad judgement in ~13 years, I hope, speaks for itself. PS. Since 2009 I don't believe I have filled an AE report trying to get anyone sanctioned; and I have have not been "filled against" outside some trivial complaint in 2011 (no action taken) and a harassment-report by Ice's sock in 2019 (no action, effectively speedy closed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
Champansh agreed with me on wiki and thanked me before the publication of her essay
Summarised at /Summary#Use of Jan T. Gross as a source
|
---|
This is an addendum to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Evidence#Another_RSN_discussion by Tryptofish related to #Appeal_of_Jan_T._Gross_edit_summary on talk. I'd like to add those diffs to evidence so that they can be inclued in the related summary: [55]: |
We are not our past - addendum
In some recent discussion, someone pointed out the quote, attributed to Kaynes, that "When the facts change, I change my mind". That's a very commendable attitude I fully approve of. To add to the "Examples of Piotrus reconsidering past actions/beliefs" in the current summary: my recent RSN vote on Glaukopis, my lack of objection to the removal of criticism by Polonsky (in my Response, 6.3-6.4) - plus my usage of him as a source diffed there.
I'd also like to submit to evidence that already back in 2020 I acknowledged that Grabowski makes some valid claims about inadequacies in our coverage of the topic area, and I asked him for permission to quote his extensive critique from a Polish newspaper on pages of several related articles, and, having received that permission, I started discussions, extensively quoting from his article, on several of our talk pages (13.1 and 13.2). Similar to this but more recent, I'd like note that I removed of a source criticized in G&K's essay here. And lastly, I'll submit recent Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#Białka_massacre as an example of a polite, constructive discussion in this topic between me, Gitz and Marcelus, where we discussed another claim from the G&K's essay and found soruces to corraborate their claim - and that I have corrected that error in the related article here.
On a side note, since Marcelus is now a party here, I found his efforts to discuss various errors and organize discussion at Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#My_comments_on_the_objections_made_by_Grabowski_and_Klein_to_this_article very commendable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Elinruby
Gitz6666
Read or at least skim the entire exchanges for the full flavor. The illustrative exchange is among the least graphic, and also notable for GizzyCatBella as the voice of reason. Each thread is essentially this, over and over again.
From: Talk:Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, section titled Category:Ukrainian war crimes
02:53, 23 December 2022 ...we should summarize. "Mass rape as a weapon of war" is a fair summary... of what the sources are saying. Adoring nanny
01:55, 24 December 2022 ...Gitz is... pushing his position that Russian forces did not commit mass rapes in Ukraine. My very best wishes
02:08, 24 December 2022 Gitz needs to stop edit warring against multiple editors. - GizzyCatBella🍁
- Much more of the same
Case Study bis: 2023
The following is the beginning of a talk page section, Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Archive 9#Poland : failed verification. The point about page numbers is a close call. The verifiability policy does not require that sources be either online or in English.
However when a sentence in an opening paragraph is followed by six references (itself a bad sign) and not one of them can be easily verified, I usually look for a previous edit war. Note, the discussion goes on from there, with a notable appearance by Piotrus as the voice of reason. I am submitting this particular exchange as evidence as it shows the pattern of asking underlined questions again, and demonstrates a complete failure to understand the importance of page numbers, since the alternate sources offered by GizzyCatBella also don't have page numbers.
Not one of these has a page number. "Unlike the situation in other German-occupied European countries, where the Germans installed collaborationist authorities, in occupied Poland there was no puppet government.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" Elinruby (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Was there a collaborationist Polish goverment installed by the German authorities during the Occupation of Poland? Did you check all 6 sources you removed? Did you check talk page archives Elinruby? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) yes I did check all six sources. This is the second time today that you've gotten upset that I am verifying sources. Do I really need to link to WP:V? It doesn't require that a source be online, I grant you, but six (!) sources in a row that can't be verified is special. Here is what I was trying to add just now:
- *Steinhaus: url does go to page 291, my mistake. However page 291 is a list of people arrested and does not support the text.
- * Strahan: archived publisher cover page, no page number provided.
- *Piotrowski: ditto Elinruby (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
PS: please lose the tone Elinruby (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Elinruby - I’m sorry that my tone (?) upsets you, I did not mean to do that. How about I'll share with you yet another source (with a quote) that says there was no collaborationist Polish puppet government during the war, unlike in most European countries, and you'll restore what you removed? Deal?
- Source: Rethinking Poles and Jews
- Quote:
During the war, while in most European countries the Germans found collaborators that set up puppet governments, Poland had no such collaborationist governments. The Germans arrested masses of Polish intellectuals, whom they perceived as a threat. As a result, thousands of Poles lost their lives during that occupation.- GizzyCatBella🍁 07:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Elinruby and feel free to choose more from this basket - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Case study: Poland section, Collaboration with the Axis powers
There are many ways to tell this story. Many narratives. Many certitudes and many attempts to reason. Everyone in this story was trying to do the right thing. Some of these people were omitted to reduce the number of moving parts in the story. And really, the blow by blow of the story doesn't matter at all.
The end of the story though, is that the article was still terrible five years later. I am explicitly declining to impose a moral on the story. A friend told me it was better not to speak up. Unless I could be wise.
And I am not wise. So I spoke up.
(A timeline in reverse chronological order)
- 12:36, 14 March 2018
Blocked François Robere. There was little indication that the edit warring would stop and editor declined to accept 1RR restriction on the article. As this is the first time the user has been blocked for edit warring, I decided that 72 hours would be appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ)
- 13 March 2018 Deep Fried Okra: full page protection
- 22:15, 12 March 2018 Dubious tag. François Robere: See talk<=edit summary
- 20 56, 12 March 2018 --GizzyCatBella Removed waste to slim down the section <= edit summary
- [20:20, 12 March 2018] User:François Robere reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: blocked)
- 20:18 March 12 2018 Sentence_by_sentence subsection -
If you review the talk page starting on February 16th, you'll see all of this has been discussed already, and multiple times, yet after so much editing work we're nearly where we started. Anyone? --François Robere
- What is going on with the Poland section? <= title of archive section (converted to link by Primefac)
GizzyCatBella makes some startling statements:
- 23:15, 10 March 2018
Go read this, [57] from your own people, I don't even have to reach to the evaluations of Polish scholars to prove how questionable is this topic. Drop that prejudiced view François Robere this is unconstructive. - GizzyCatBella
- 06:30, 10 March 2018
Collaborators in Poland at the most could hold: Volksdeutsche, The Blue Police, Jewish Ghetto Police, Judenrats to some extents, Żagiew and Group 13. That's all thank you very much. -GizzyCatBella
- 23:50, 9 March 2018
I'll tell you how I see all of this, and I’ll be straightforward. The truth of the matter is that Poland has never produced any organized collaborating element, unlike the other occupied nations. None. Poland was unique; the collaboration breathed solely on an individual level. This reality is inconvenient for some groups, so personal collaboration is being overblown to the absurd levels by people like Grabowski; his ridiculous claims that"the whole society collaborated" is complete nonsense. -GizzyCatBella
- 19:18, 2 March 2018
The fact that the Germans attempted to find collaborators in Poland is unknown to the general public hence needs to be incorporated here. -GizzyCatBella
- Features mediation attempt by Slatersteven, GCB Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Positive contribution: Marcelus and Collaboration with the Axis powers
Summarised at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area
|
---|
|
Marcelus and Gitz6666
Summarised at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area
|
---|
At the moment I can't find the original discussion where Marcellus offered to do this, but Marcelus deserves vast credit for his rewrite of the Jewish collaboration section,[61] 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 [63].
|
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[64] which had been stuck in my mind for years as egregious... I was heavily involved in a very important RfC above it on RSN Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA) and remember explicitly refraining from commenting because I was almost certain that it would lead to retaliation against me in the discussion I was working on. What this says to me is that this was always an open secret, we always knew that a certain group of editors would disrupt the project to get their way in their own little kingdom. We didn't need Grabowski & Klein to tell us that, anyone who was paying attention knew it. Since that RSN post I have involved myself rather heavily in this topic area, my observations and diffs post February 10 will be presented in future sections. |
Summarized at Use of Kot (1937) at Paradisus Judaeorum
|
---|
Here is the other time I didn't get involved in this topic area and regret it. Going back to 2020 on Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum we find Piotrus and Nihil novi engaged in a battle against all comers, they effectively stonewall @Chumchum7:, @Warshy:, and SarahSV (deceased). Those involved said it best[65][66]. I watched that whole series of discussions but didn't participate, in hindsight I feel great shame at that. I feel like my silence enabled abuse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
|
We are not our past
Summarized at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Piotrus
|
---|
I believe that the point of this proceedings is generally that evidence of misconduct or issues is provided but I would ask leave to also provide evidence in favor of Piotrus, among all the editors under discussion they seem to have made the most growth in terms of how they interact with other editors. The Piotrus I see when I look at years old diffs is not the Piotrus I see today, I like the current one much better. There are a few places where I've noted this but the one I have a diff for is[68]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Additional diff:[69] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Recentish noticeboard discussions
RSN
FTN
Summarised at /Summary#Fringe_Theory_Noticeboard
|
---|
COIN
BLPN
Not summarised for now; most of these decisions did not reach a clear resolution or were poorly-attended |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
NPOVN
Misc.
Retribution/retaliation
Summary at /Summary#Chapmansh and Volunteer Marek
|
---|
In my opinion Volunteer Marek has engaged in WP:HARASSMENT against Chapmansh. This harassment is most visible in the form of repeated pings which occurred in the time period following the publication of the article. These pings began on the 10th[70] 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 [[71]] but they didn't, I asked them a second time to stop gratuitously pinking Chapmansh[72] 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 [73][74]. 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[77] 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) [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]. Notable points:
- uncivil edit summary by Yaniv (
rv antisemitic vandalism
), who is therefore indefinitely blocked for tendentious editing by TonyBallioni [85] - despite explicit request [86], 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" [87], books by CUP [88], Palgrave [89], OUP [90], Harvard UP [91]. - 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) [92], [93], [94] and [95], [96], [97], [98] (incorporating/merging some of the two competing texts), [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106] and [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]. 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
[114] (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).
Analysis. Something wasn't working properly in the topic area. The choice between Tatzref's text (text 1) and Icewhiz's text (text 2) was a no-brainer: cf. text 1 (22 February, 16 May, 3 June) and text 2 (12 March, 16 May, 3 June): it is clear that text 2 is better. This doesn't mean that editors supporting text 1 were not in good faith: I don't believe that at all. Besides, Wikipedia's method of collaborative writing does not guarantee that the outcomes will always be optimal. Finally, in the case of Jewish property the best draft ultimately prevailed. But it took two AE requests, one RSN thread, one RFC, 4 months of toxic discussions, 1 indeff'd editor (Yaniv [115]; see Icewhiz's comment on his user page: [116]). That t/p discussion shows a blocked and dysfunctional editing process, a process that was bound to generate "distortions" on many accounts; in an area such as Holocaust remembrance, it was also bound to generate arch-Pov-pushers like Icewhiz.
Naliboki massacre, 2018-2019
With regard to Jewish partisans being responsible for the Naliboki massacre, background knowledge: this is not supported by historical evidence, since basically no RS says that the massacre was made by Jewish partisans in general nor by the Bielski partisans in particular. Some eyewitnesses reported that the killings were carried out by Bielski partisans/by Jews, but subsequent historical research found no documentary evidence. In the 2000s Polish nationalists began blaming Jews, possibly as a balancing counterweight to the culpability of Poles in the Jedwabne pogrom.
Since February-March 2018 various edits from IP and Yaniv adding/removing claims about the Jewish ethnicity of the perpetrators; March 2018, Icewhiz removes FRINGE, UNDUE, BLPCRIME. This enough space for this error
[117].
- 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 this 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.
[118]; Icewhiz removes [119]; VM restores text [120] 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
[121][122]; VM reverts while you can expand on the text, please don't just remove well sourced text
[123].
July 2018 Yaniv removes [124], IP address restores you are attempting to whitewash Jewish crimes by removing cited sources of perpetrators
[125]; Yaniv stop disrupting
[126]; 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)
[127]; 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
[128]; Yaniv includes text The IPN has said that there was no supporting documentation for this premise [Jew partisans did it]
+ sources [129] and removes text and sources involving Jews partisans [130]; Tatzref restores [131] and removes new content [132].
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
[133]; VM restores [134] (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
. [135][136]
Last step in the saga: after G&K's article was published, new users, including me, landed on the page to clean it up. TrangaBellam and I got a little upset with Marcelus, who was still very interested in reconstructing the movements of the Jewish partisans in the forest, to the point that he made an edit war on this (GizzyCatBella concurring on the talk page). It ended up at AE but the article is now in decent conditions, and the reading of the section Unsubstantiated claims of Jewish perpetrators is quite instructive.
My analysis. I really appreciate VM's essay Edit warring is good for you, which reminds me Machiavelli's view on liberty and conflict, which is at the heart of republicanism. However, in the case of the Naliboki massacre edit war didn't deliver the good - possibly because Wikipedia's methods is more dialogical than confrontational? I don't know.
Note that the G&K paper involves Piotrus in the Naliboki saga, 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 [137][138], which look well within AGF to me and, in the case of the second one, entirely harmless.
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 [139] and adds tags:"dubious" to source Farkash [140]; 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 [141][142].
- 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 [143], 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
[144] (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
[145]; Buidhe restores:This is a featured article. Please get consensus for changes before implemeting them
[146]; VM reverts:if sources are misrepresented then perhaps it SHOULDN'T be a featured article
[147]; Buidhe restoresYour claims about the Zimmerman source are baseless, I just double-checked
[148]. VM adds tag:POV section [149]. GKB makes mininal inconsequential edit [150]. - 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
[151]; Buidhe restoresThe article passed FAC. The text, therefore, has consensus
[152]. GCB removesBuidhe, I’m sorry but WP:ONUS is on you
[153]; Buidhe restores [154]; VM removes [155]; DrKay restores [156]; GCB removes [157]; DrKay restores removing the contentious word "fugitives" [158]. - 25-26 May: Chumchum7 adds the tag:"citation needed" [159]; Z1720 removes [160]; Chumchum7 restores [161]; Chipmunkdavis removes [162].
- 26 May: Piotrus modifies contentious text [163] and adds Poles helping Jews [164]; Buidhe reverts with detailed edit summary [165]; Piotrus removes contentious text [166]; 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.
[167]; VM revertsYou can’t quote WP:OWN as a justification for acting like you own the article!
[168] - 26 May. Ymblanter fully protects. 29-30 May. Virus Swatter (Icewhiz SP?) restores [169]; GCB reverts [170].
- 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 at 01:42, 27 May 2021. 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 agreesNo, 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 [171]: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
[172] VM reverts [173] and opens a discussion on the t/p with heading "Restarting old disputes" (ongoing).
My analysis Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella violated multiple policies and guidelines (WP:WAR, WP:BATTLE, WP:DIS, WP:GAME and WP:CIV). I find Piotrus's and Chumchum7's edits questionable, because they add their weight and arguments to VM's and GCB's disruption, but I think they remain within the scope of WP:AGF and are compliant with policy. Buidhe's (and others') behaviour was truly commendable.
Glaukopis (2022 and 2023)
Our dedicated article describes Glaukopis as "nationalist Polish history journal catering to the far right"; G&K say that its long-time editor-in-chief, Wojciech Muszyński "openly praises the ONR, one of the most militant, rabidly antisemitic organizations of prewar Poland".
In a March 2023 discussion at RSN, all editors (Piotrus included) commented that Glaukopis is unreliable; the only exception was My very best wishes, who nonetheless assesed the source as WP:BIASED arguing that it can be used with care and with appropriate attribution
.
Compare with a February 2021 discussion on the same source:
- Volunteer Marek replies to Buidhe's original post
Whoa whoa whoa. Buidhe is using "oko-press", a highly partisan outlet (I'd say roughly comparable to something like The Jacobin, itself not reliable, to attack Muszynski. These charges may or may not be true, but you can't do this here - this is a pretty serious BLP violation
(17:21, 4 February 2021);Did you actually read the sources you're bringing here?
(18:53, 4 February 2021);Buidhe compounds their BLP violation above by using non-reliable sources to smear academics
(17:32, 4 February 2021). - VM likens Institut Glaukopis with universities that
have their own presses and publish their own journals, with articles from their own faculty (some places, like MIT or Chicago, MOSTLY their own faculty). As long as the editorial board includes outside scholars and so does the peer review, then this shouldn't be a concern
(17:23, 4 February 2021). Also MyMoloboaccount says that Glaukopis isReliable -peer reviewed, includes notable cited historians
(15:04, 4 February 2021) and GizzyCatBella agrees,Reliable - Glaukopis is an obvious peer-reviewed scholarly publication
(17:29, 4 February 2021). - Generalrelative reproaches VM two times, first for an uncivil comment (François Robere's !vote should be discounted since FR has used Glaukopis as RS in the past), then for bludgeoning the discussion (eleven comments from 17:21 to 19:36, 4 February 2021; two more on the next day).
- An Icewhiz's SP joins the discussion adding to the confusion. Eventually ten editors argue that Glaukopis is unreliable, seven that it is not, and the discussion doesn't deliver a consensus.
Analysis. There are two plausible explanations for this rapid change of opinion in the community. First, the March 2023 discussion was negatively influenced by the recent publication of the unreliable and biased G&K article. Second, the February 2021 discussion was negatively influenced by VM's incivility and bludgeoning, and by the usual support from involved editors. The choice between these two explanations is the fundamental issue at the heart of this case. On the one side we could rely on RSs and trust them when they tell us that Glaukopis is unreliable, or that the restitution of abandoned property to Jews in post-war Poland was difficult, or that there's no reason to believe that the Naliboki massacre was carried out by Jewish partisans, or that local ethnic Poles and the Home Army were occasionally hostile to Jewish fugitives, etc. (examples taken from my evidence, many more in François Robere's evidence). On the other side we could rely on the good faith and competence of fellow editors who have been close to us for years. I understand that for some users this may be a difficult choice. Another instructive discussion is the AfD on Anna Poray (Poeticbent, Nihil Novi, My very best wishes, MyMoloboaccount, Tatzref, GizzyCatBella - Volunteer Marek is absent).
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: [174] [175] [176] [177] (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 [178] and indeed this was one of the Findings of Fact during the 2019 case [179] 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 [180] - 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 [182] and Piotrus being blackmailed in order to explicitly drive them away from this topic area [183]. 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 [184], the desperate plea for their family to be left alone [185], repeated several times "STOP HARASSING ME. YOU RUINED MY LIFE.LEAVE ME AND MY FAMILY ALONE. DELETE MY ACCOUNT. LEAVE ME ALONE." [186] [187] [188] [189], more desperate requests to have their Wikipedia page deleted [190] 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: [200] (note this is Gitz6666's section heading, it was renamed by uninvolved editor to "Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666"), [201] ("sealioning" is a reference to Gitz6666's behavior), rest of the exchange in same thread: [202][203] [204] [205] [206] and this one [207] (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 [208] [209] [210] and here a pretty good description of Gitz6666's editing behavior. And then [211] Also on user talk pages [212] [213] 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: [214] [215] [216] [217]
- I do want to stress here that Elinruby's comments and views in these discussion are very much inline what many other (uninvolved) users said (can list if needed), hence the topic ban for Gitz6666 in the end. Volunteer Marek 17:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Gitz6666 has taken upon themselves to restart old disputes
Not summarised yet. See /Analysis for more. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]() Now, Gitz6666 has decided to pour through my very old edits, apparently going back all the way to 2009 (see bottom of this version) and go and revert either my old edits or re-open old disputes I was involved in. With complete lack of self awareness, in the same page where they're pulling diffs of my edits from... 2009 they claim, unironically as best as I can tell, that "I've never wikihounded VM". Right. That's why they're digging out edits from 2009 and attempting to restart old disputes like here (note the false edit summary: the consensus was reached on that article with these comments (pleaseread them in order) [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] 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 [225] Gitz6666 claims IF *I* all of sudden started going through Gitz6666's edits from 2017 or 2018 or whatever and reverting them, while this case was ongoing and while I was presenting case against them, I would most certainly expect to be sanctioned (blocks supposed to be preventive etc.) - but of course I'm not the one doing that. Volunteer Marek 05:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC) |
Ealdgyth's 2022 attempt to improve Holocaust in Poland article
At the end of the fiasco of that 2021 case request by User:Jehochman, User:Ealdgyth drew up a list "problems and errors" in the article on Holocaust in Poland and invited the editors involved in this topic area to work to resolve them here.
This was exactly the kind of initiative that I think was needed.
Unfortunately, I was the ONLY person to step up and try to work on the problems highlighted by Ealdgyth (see my edits to the article in Jan ’22, this one, through this one, which was really the last time I made extensive edits to this topic area). There’s always a lot of screaming and yelling about how many problems there supposedly are in this topic area, but nobody seemed interested in actually fixing them. The only other editors involved were User:My very best wishes who asked some questions on the talk, and User:François Robere who showed up posting some stuff about Poeticbent or something [226] and, in my view, attempted to turn this effort into another bickerin' battleground (although they seemed to have changed their mind and undid their post) [227]. I should also say that even though I expected this kind of response from FR, I was also deeply disappointed that no other "Polish" editors tried to help out with these very real problems.
But I can understand why nobody else stepped up. I spent about 2 weeks on the article and managed to address maybe half a dozen issues (out of 41). Fixing these things also required acquiring particular works and books, which I spent my own money on (another one I ordered through Interlibrary Loan but it took awhile to arrive). So lots of time and some money. For basically no reward. Maybe even negative reward, since the whole time I worked on it I was extremely conscious of the fact that any edit I made could potentially be used against me at some point by someone with an axe to grind, who would misrepresent or twist it. Indeed, the G&K paper and some of the evidence being presented here is exactly of that nature. When you edit this topic area you get extremely paranoid because you know some people are saving every single diffs for possible future use against you, that every thing you do will be interpreted not just in bad faith but the-worst-possible-faith, and that's not even getting into the Icewhiz harassment.
My disappointment in lack of effort by anyone else (except of course Ealdgyth), especially the people who are always running around screaming about how faulty this topic area is, is a big part of what led me to pretty much abandon this topic area in 2022. Volunteer Marek 08:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Proposed IBAN with FR as result of Callanecc's civility restriction
Summarised at /Summary#François Robere and Volunteer Marek
|
---|
This is an addition/elaboration on evidence presented by User:Callanecc [228] Since the imposition of this restriction the only person who has accused me of violating it is User:François Robere. Significantly, FR made the accusation [229] regarding edits to a different topic area, which did not involve them. This is pretty clear evidence that FR was Wiki-stalking my edits looking for something to get me in trouble with, even after I stopped editing in the Holocaust in Poland topic area. When I responded to FR's accusations on Callanecc's talk page [230] and explicitly stated I have no intention of interacting with FR [231], Francois Robere actually claimed that me responding to his accusations was evidence that I was "following him" [232] ... ... ... because I responded to his accusations against ME, on another user's talk page. This was so over top absurd that I asked for a two way IBAN with FR [233]. I even asked FR if he was ok with an IBAN, since they were claiming that I was following them (rather than vice versa - reminder: they were complaining about my comments at articles they didn't even edit!) [234] Callenecc then responded by analyzing FR's "diffs" [235]. They said one of the comments could be seen as a breach (I struck the comment per the wording of the restriction [236]). More importantly they also pointed out to FR that, well, obviously, I came to their talk page to respond and if I hadn't, Callanecc was going to ping me anyway. Callanecc also stated that they were considering an IBAN on FR even before they read my suggestion of the same. FR then quickly posted refusing the two way IBAN, falsely claiming that only evidence of him following me around was stale [237] (completely untrue - I mean, kind of hilariously, the very fact FR was posting diffs of my edits from articles they didn't edit or weren't involved in was itself evidence of their following me) The fact that *I* proposed a 2 way I ban while FR rejected it is pretty clear indication of who is following who around Wikipedia. I want nothing to do with FR. They want to be able to stalk my edits. FR already has an interaction ban with GizzyCatBella and has admitted in the past to watching User:Mymoloboaccount's contributions [238] (last sentence in diff) and following them around (they were almost indef blocked for this by User:RexxS [239]. This is relevant in light of my evidence on how Mymoloboaccount left Wikipedia [240]. Stalking and trying to "police" "Polish editors" is a long running pattern with Francois Robere, going back to 2018. Callanecc then said [241] that they'll wait to see if the ArbCom takes the (present) case. I am interpreting this to basically be saying that IF the ArbCom had not taken this case, Callanecc was going to proceed with the 2 way IBAN. Bottomline: an IBAN with Francois Robere is a good idea. They are clearly following me around (as they did with GCB and Mymoloboaccount previously - those instances they admitted but I guess they figured out by now that that's not a good look) and they are accusing me of following them around (I'm not). You can make the IBAN 2 way if you want to though, I have no desire to interact with them. User:Callanecc - if I misrepresented anything in this section please let me know. This is my understanding of the incident and if I got something wrong, it's not intentional. |
I've pretty much stopped editing in this topic area
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Volunteer Marek
|
---|
The request for Arbitration filed by Jehochman in 2021 was closed in January of 2022 [242].Since February 1 2022 up until February 1 2023 I made a total of 4729 edits to Wikipedia. This includes minor edits, reversions of vandalism, etc., everything (4181 edits between Feb 1 2022 and Dec 30 2022 and another 548 in January 2023) [243] Out of these 4729 edits during the past year (dating from Feb 1) fifty one (51) were in the topic area of Holocaust in Poland. That's 1.08% of my edits during this time period Of these 4729 edits during that year forty eight (48) were related to World War 2 in Poland but NOT the Holocaust in Poland . That's 1.01% of my edits during this time period 97.9% of my edits during that year were to OTHER topics. Of the 51 edits in this topic area I made in that year, 38 were in regard to controversy on the Jan Karski article with a strange account which made some strange statements (about "spies on Wikipedia" and how a source was available from their "friend"). 5 of them were reversions of obvious socks (not Icewhiz, User:English Patriot Man/User:Janj9088 [244] [245]) or minor edits or reverting vandalism. Other than the Karski edits and these 5, I made only 8 edits, out of 4729 to this topic area (roughly one-fifth-of-one-percent, or .0017) during this time. I have pretty much abandoned this topic area. For two reasons. First, there was much less socking by Icewhiz during this period, the 500/30 restriction having done its job. Second, just plain burn out. Just getting sick of all the controversies and bad faith and knowing that every edit you make is saved by someone as a diff to be used and twisted against you. Ultimately, why bother? Yes, subsequent to the publication of the G&K paper (Feb 10?) several controversies in this topic area were restarted. And yes, I did comment and edit some articles in relation to some of them. Even there I really tried to restrict myself to cases where somebody was getting something really wrong or where I thought my comments would be particularly helpful. I also want to acknowledge (yes I'm being defensive, pre-emptive and paranoid) before somebody accuses me of bad faith that in January of 2022 I also made other edits to this topic area. This was basically the "tail end" or "wrap up" if you'd like of the 2021 WCC case request. Again, above numbers are for Feb 2022 to Feb 2023. List of all my edits is available through my editing history but I can send a spread sheet of all of them which breaks it down by topic area on request. Volunteer Marek 06:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
My responses on substack
I would like to enter into evidence some of my responses to G&K paper I made into substack, while noting explicitly that those posts were NOT written for Wikipedians but rather more for an outside audience. That means that a good portion of what I wrote there is old news around these parts or things which are obvious to Wikipedians (like what WP:BLP or WP:DENY are).
Here is my main response to G&K. I may try - time permitting - to enter some of this info into evidence independently but if that does not happen I wish to especially emphasize the section "Collective Responsibility (paragraphs 10 - 30)" of this post, including the graphs and the sub-sections.
Here is the second part of main response. Similarly, if I do not have time to enter this info independently, I wish to bring special attention to the table illustrating the extensive overlap between the texts in the paper and Icewhiz's old complaints; almost everything in the second part of the section was previously posted by Icewhiz in either WP:AE requests or as part of the 2019 case. Some of the wording in G&K paper is what we would call on Wikipedia a "close paraphrase" of what Icewhiz wrote previously. The sources used by G&K were often first used by Icewhiz on Wikipedia. The controversies that ensued post Icewhiz's 2019 ban involved his sock puppets.
Third part addresses some specific accusations made by G&K against me [246]. Some of this has been referenced in various evidences in this case and I hope to provide elaboration in subsequent phases of this case. Volunteer Marek 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Nihil novi
Ealdgyth mis-characterized a diff
Evidence not yet summarised; original concern not carried over to the /Summary but will be added if it does tie to future evidence/analysis |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Discussing an assertion by author Richard C. Lukas, Ealdgyth writes that Lukas' information had been unjustifiably "added [to the article] with Special:Diff/826962453 in 2018 by Nihil novi (talk · contribs)". Inspection shows that my entry (of 22 February 2018) had not at all involved the adding of information, Lukas' or anyone else's, but simply copyediting to improve the passage's English usage. Nihil novi (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Grabowski and Klein imply that I distort the history of the Holocaust
Evidence not yet summarised, may tie in to future evidence if counter-examples of negative editing are required |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's disconcerting to find myself named in the paper, "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust", by Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein (aka Chapmansh on Wikipedia). Being no Holocaust expert, I have limited myself in this subject matter to copyediting articles for clarity and English usage and to translating texts, especially from Polish and Latin, into English. For example, in the "Paradisus Judaeorum" article, the original English renderings of the Latin of the 5 versions (from the years 1606, 1664, 1672, 1685, and 1708-09, the first being the longest) of the pasquinade "The Kingdom of Poland Is..." ("Regnum Polonorum est..."), listing shortcomings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the situation of the Jews being but one of 19 in the first version), were so bad that I retranslated their Latin into English: on 17 March 2020 (at 10:24, 11:26, 22:04, 22:19, and 22:46) and on 18 March 2020 (at 5:55, 8:42, 9:21, and 9:23). I also, on various dates, copyedited the article's English text. I have been polite in my exchanges with fellow editors and have endeavored to keep an open mind on contentious questions (I can say the same of other editors, especially Piotrus). |
Evidence presented by K.e.coffman
GizzyCatBella
Presenting some earlier diffs to show that the issues continue since the imposition/lifting of the topic ban.
Competence to edit in the topic area
Summarized at /Summary#Identifying high quality sources
|
---|
References
|
Using BLP as a cudgel
Summarized at /Summary#Identifying high quality sources
|
---|
|
Sidetracking discussions
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
|
Substance-free contributions
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
|
Battleground mentality
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
|
Summary
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
I understand that there is a language barrier, which I sympathize with, but I believe that GizzyCatBella is a net negative in the topic area, whose positive contributions, mostly consisting of reporting suspected socks, do not outweigh the negative ones. They include: biased editing; failure to properly use sources; and disruptive contributions to discussions. This crosses into the territory of general inability to productively and neutrally contribute to article development. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Evidence presented by GhostOfDanGurney
GizzyCatBella POV pushing & procedure issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi monuments in Canada
Summarised at /Summary#Behaviour during discussions
|
---|
(For background, I don't dive into this topic area often; I have Deletion sorting/Canada on my watchlist, which is how I became aware of the below AfD).
Other parties in the discussion
|
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: [294]. Icewhiz is there, arguing that the book is so mainstream that attribution is unnecessary. Chapmansh makes this comment: [295], which seems to me to be reasonable. The day before, she also said: [296] 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 / 1, 2), Christopher Browning (35 / 1, 2), Berel Lang (35 / 1) and Antony Polonsky (36-38 / 1, 2, 3), as well as Shmuel Krakowski ([297], [298]) and even Grabowski himself ([299])
Editors' conduct
- Editors such as Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, who spend considerable time on-Wiki, understand the system well and have considerable "social capital", are exceedingly difficult to challenge - especially when they back each other (40-41)
- Piotrus and VM have "purged" criticisms of the IPN (40 / Special:PermaLink/1100791296#Mass removal of criticisms)
- They and others have prevented a short, neutrally-worded paragraph about property restitution from being included in The Holocaust in Poland (41 / Special:PermaLink/1092871024#Survey)
- Several of these editors seem to be communicating off-Wiki (41-42 / WP:EEML)
- Piotrus, VM, MyMoloboaccount and My very best wishes were members of the EEML (42 / WP:EEML)
- Piotrus has offered other editors to communicate by email (42 / Special:PermaLink/843149146#WP:EMAIL, Special:PermaLink/863373791#WP:EMAIL)
- Piotrus has canvassed on pl.Wiki (42 / AN thread)
- Some disagreements between editors are no doubt honest, while others appear "tactical" (42-43)
- VM, with others, has frustrated several months' worth of attempts to improve Jan Żaryn (43-44, 50)
- Incivility in the TA is common (44-45)
- VM uses profanities and personally attacks other editors with zeal (45-46[1])
- On some articles, VM's contributions constitute little more than deleting other editors' additions (46 / xtools, xtools)
- Editors have been worn down and driven away from the TA again and again (46-47 / Ealdgyth, Ermenrich, SlimVirgin, as well as Levivich,[300][301] Mhorg,[302] Buidhe[303] and myself).
- Admins are not exempt from these stresses either (49 / JzG, Barkeep49, Ymblanter, Ymblanter, as well as El C[304] and probably Tamzin[305][306])
- "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"[307]
- While the sourcing restriction was an improvement, the previous ARC did not resolve the TA's problems (51-52)
- T-bans have been lifted for the wrong reasons more than once (53-54)
- Joe Roe and El C deserve credit for realizing the effect their and others' attitudes had on the TA (54-55)
- Icewhiz's "socking" caused various problems in the TA, one being that it opened an avenue of attack against other editors as alleged "socks" (55-56)
References
- ^
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899921948
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899919573
- "Talk:Jared Taylor/Archive 2," September 26, 2016, Special:PermaLink/1079703699#!votes
- "Talk:JanŻaryn/Archive1," June 8, 2021, Special:PermaLink/1070448193#RFC_on_François_Robere's_second_proposal:_Views_and_lead
- "Talk:Koniuchy massacre/Archive3," November 15, 2018, Special:PermaLink/914543764#Religious_prejudice
- "Talk:Koniuchy massacre/Archive3," November 21, 2018, Special:PermaLink/914543764#Another_false_edit_summary_by_Icewhiz._Another_false_and_nonsensical_accusation_of_BLP_vio_by_Icewhiz._While_he_commits_BLP_vio_himself
- "Talk:Home Army/Archive 4," May 2, 2018, Special:PermaLink/1091452685#AK_units_hunting_down_groups
- "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 181," November 27, 2021, Special:PermaLink/1064391779
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899925262
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case," June 2, 2019, Special:Diff/899921948
- "User talk:Volunteer Marek," August 3, 2021, Special:PermaLink/1036971518#SPI
- "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248," February 2019, Special:PermaLink/1079521824#Statement_by_VM
- "Talk:Nalibo-ki_massacre," 13:48, March 15, and 05:22, March 18, 2018, Special:PermaLink/1026103883
Volunteer Marek
Attacks, aspersions, hounding and general incivility
VM's T-ban, put in place during the 2019 ArbCom case,[308] was lifted on 18 December 2020.[309] Since then:
- 20:55, 22 December 2020 "Are you confused about which one of the many disputes you’ve currently engaged yourself in, you’re commenting on? Understandable, since you’re involved in like half a dozen of them (all of which you started)" (to Buidhe)
- 15:09, 23 December 2020 Asked to avoid personal comments by me
- 02:58, 26 January 2021, 03:14, 26 January 2021 Asked to AGF and warned against making PAs by Paul Siebert
- 21:47, 1 February 2021 "I suggest you actually follow the developments here rather than, as the superficial nature of your comment suggests, just reflexively picking a side" (to K.e.coffman)
- 01:12, 2 February 2021 Asked to avoid "personalising the discussion and assuming bad faith right off the bat" by K.e.coffman
- 23:15, 3 February 2021 Falsely accuses me of stalking him (refuted by Buidhe [310])
- 23:33, 3 February 2021 Again accuses me of stalking him
- 21:19, 4 February 2021 Admonished by Generalrelative
- 00:14, 6 February 2021 "Buidhe made big controversial changes without bothering to discuss them. Buidhe edit warred when these changes were challenged. Buidhe then tried to get their way by filing spurious AE report. Buidhe then couldn't help themselves and began edit warring again before any compromise could be worked out. Buidhe used a false edit summary which claimed WP:FALSECON. Buidhe removed multiple reliable sources from the article. Support for Buidhe has consisted of nothing more than some incivil substance free comments from you [FR] and generalities from one other editor [K.e.coffman?]. As an added bonus you began stalking my edits across multiple articles ... as some kind of payback or strategy or something. When I requested you stop, you doubled down on the rudeness and incivility"
- 13:29, 9 February 2021 Asked to ping editors against whom he makes threats and baseless accusations (by Boynamedsue)
- 04:48, 10 February 2021 Asked for civility by K.e.coffman; replies by banning her from his TP, misrepresenting my comments, then scouring my TP for "dirt"
- 09:12, 11 February 2021 Warned against "using [Icewhiz's] specter as a blunt instrument" by El C (admin)
- 03:20, 15 February 2021 Again accuses me of stalking him (refuted by K.e.coffman [311])
- On Talk:Zygmunt Krasiński and related discussions:
- 19:54, 19 February 2021 Makes up an elaborate scenario where I intentionally violated an I-ban, then accuses me of trying to WP:GAME it
- 19:33, 23 February 2021, 20:15, 23 February 2021 Puts that and a whole bunch more on RSN. This was so stressful at the time, that I asked for PP for the board.[312]
- 20:39, 23 February 2021 Warned against "misuse of RSN" by El C (admin)
- 21:20, 23 February 2021 Puts that rant in its own WP:ATTACKPAGE
- 15:25, 24 February 2021 I still wanted to address the content problem, but I didn't want people to read what he wrote about me, so before posting on NPOVN I collapsed his earlier attack as "unhelpful". When he sees this he un-collapses the attack, and I'm forced to delete the NPOVN post.[313][314])
- 17:43, 22 March 2021 Another warning by El C (admin)
- 15:35 18 March 2021 T&S refuse to intervene, stating that "there are sufficient community governance actions available... to handle the issue", and that "it doesn't appear that you or anyone else has attempted to report ongoing personal attacks or harassment by VM to either Arbcom... or a noticeboard in the past two years... so there's no way to confirm that the community isn't willing to handle the matter". My subsequent email, explaining why no reports have been being made, remains unanswered
- 18:47, 27 April 2021 Accuses Mhorg of canvassing
- 18:20, 18 June 2021 "Please stop restoring edits by indef banned users (Icewhiz) particularly since your long term on wiki relationship with them raises the issue of WP:MEATPUPPETRY" (refuted [315][316])
- 18:43, 19 June 2021 Unclear insinuation about K.e.coffman
- 18:25, 18 June 2021 "That’s a funny way to “count” (sic). Is that the “new math”?" (he's also factually wrong)
- 19:40, 18 June 2021 "I know this is, like, very inconvenient, since then you can’t line up the little pieces on the two sides of the “bad guys” and “good guys” line but this isn’t a Hollywood movie." (also factually wrong [317])
- 01:04, 19 June 2021 Asked to avoid making accusations in edit summaries by K.e.coffman
- 14:17, 19 June 2021 Asked to AGF by Brigade Piron
- 18:20, 19 June 2021 "The amount of text that was dedicated to Poland was UNDUE and served as a COATRACK. I’m bothered by the fact that you’ve shown up on several articles in the recent past solely to revert me" (refuted [318])
- 19:37, 19 June 2021 "The fact that you seem to purposefully exclude a key piece of info... will suggest to readers that you’re not filing this with WP:CLEANHANDS... You might want to take out all the falsehoods before you file this, though I’m not sure how much you gonna have left at that point" (to Szmenderowiecki, after reading a message they left on my TP [319])
- 08:00, 7 July 2021 "let’s recount how your wiki-collaborator Icewhiz was topic banned for BLP violations, specifically (as in the ArbCom provided the diffs in their decision) with regard to the same Ewa Kurek who you just compared to a Holocaust denier" (the comparison was actually David Silberklang and Berel Lang's)
- 15:07, 7 July 2021 El C (admin) refuses to get involved
- 20:24, 8 July 2021 Asked to avoid bad faith accusations by Girth Summit (admin)
- 08:50, 11 July 2021, 08:56, 11 July 2021 Accidentally reverts another editor on K.e.coffman's TP. It seems despite banishing the latter from his TP several months earlier, he continued to follow hers
Evidence presented by Andreas Kolbe
Grabowski and Klein's essay violates the Wikimedia Foundation's Universal Code of Conduct as written
The Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct was approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on December 9, 2020. [320] The Universal Code of Conduct is in force. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project. [321] The Code's "Unacceptable behaviour" section includes "harassment". The definition of "harassment" includes the following: Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects. As the Committee is no doubt aware, the essay by Grabowski and User:Chapmansh shares other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, [...] without their explicit consent, and shares information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines on March 9, 2023. [322] Once again, the Wikimedia Foundation has stated that these guidelines may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project. [323] The m:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines state: Enforcement of the UCoC by local governance structures will be supported in multiple ways. Communities will be able to choose from different mechanisms or approaches based on several factors such as: the capacity of their enforcement structures, approach to governance, and community preferences. Some of these approaches can include: • An Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) for a specific Wikimedia project Will the Committee take action in this case to enforce the Wikimedia Foundation's Universal Code of Conduct? --Andreas JN466 18:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC) |
Grabowski and Klein's views of other scholars
Issues of scholarly standing are out of scope. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Grabowski and User:Chapmansh's dismissive views of certain scholars are not universally shared:
|
Evidence presented by Barkeep49
February 2023 article creations by TrangaBellam
This came to my attention via HEB's evidence. I plan to give a more detailed summary later but wanted to put this into evidence now so people could know I'm looking at/thinking about it.
In February 2023, TrangaBellam created 7 new articles (source). 3 of them were in the topic area of this case and 1 of them was related:
- Tomasz Greniuch - Polish historian, formerly employed by the Institute of National Remembrance
- Mariusz Bechta Polish historian and publisher, affiliated with the Institute of National Remembrance
- Glaukopis Polish history journal catering to the far right
- Marcin Zaremba - Polish historian (related)
At Glaukopis Piotrus placed a {{NPOV}} tag on the article, which was reverted by TrangaBellam, who started a talk page discussion, and which was re-added by GizzyCatBella. The specific concern was about whether the article contained an undue amount of criticism. After discussion of the sources by those three editors there was a rough consensus that the article was following the policy and the tag was removed.
At Marcin Zaremba, TrangaBellam posted some sources and a short discussion between her and GizzyCatBella followed.
Evidence presented by Mhorg
I started contributing a little bit in this topic area from March 2021 to July 2021. As I wrote earlier: "I left for other topics, as collaboration was at a low point and no improvements could be made on the articles."
Volunteer Marek removed sourced contents with undue/notability motivations
- Removes the Sahryń massacre (700 Ukrainian civilians killed) from Home Army with the motivation: "unsourced probably UNDUE"[324]
- Removes the case of Tomasz Greniuch appointed as head of the IPN of Wroclaw with the motivation: "Not RS, undue, etc"[325]
- Removes a diatribe between Zaryn and Ukraine with the motivation: "not sure why this is notable (also oko not reliable despite what Icewhiz socks claim))". There were about 6 or 7 users who claimed it was reliable.[326]
Volunteer Marek and tag-teaming with My very best wishes
My experience in this topic-area is minimal, so I do not know whether VM actually acted inappropriately. What I can say is that IF this has indeed happened, it would not have been possible without the help of other colleagues who punctually step in to support him. What I can suggest to the investigators, is to carefully monitor the past interactions between VM and the user My very best wishes.
- VM and MVBW were already tag-teaming as reported in WP:EEML
- VM and MVBW have been accused in subsequent years of tag-teaming in another AE Request (closed with no-consensus).[327]
- MVBW intervenes in support of VM without ever having intervened once on Zaryn's page.[328]
- MVBW is accused of following VM to help him. This is his response: "Speaking not about myself, but in general, no, following a contributor you would like to help with improvement of pages is actually great."[329]
Minor issues: Volunteer Marek and the way of discussing with users
- VM alludes that I would be a sock of Icewhiz[330]
- When I noticed it I did not give it any weight. I only bring it up because in G&K's article are reported rude terms from VM against other users. In this discussion he was talking to me and Gitz6666, who are both Italian (and he knows that). VM nonsensically writes the word 'Lasagna' (Italian food), which he then corrects with the word 'Last'. Perhaps he was writing from his mobile phone and pressed the wrong suggested word?[331]
Evidence presented by Chumchum7
Dispute with VM that led to Gitz's TBAN on Ukraine [332] spilled into Poland topic area, demonstrated by slow edit war, misleading edit summary and source handling
User:Zero0000's recent observations [333][334] increase my concern about the pattern of behaviour by Gitz in this topic area, known to be cared about by his perceived adversary, VM. Note I have disagreements with VM on the record; despite valuable experience that helps Wikipedia, his temper needs to cool down - especially in response to WP:BAIT.
Gitz at Jedwabne Pogrom, instead of keeping to talk page amid WP:BRD, repeatedly removes a pop-out excerpt in the lede that had consensus for months, from Stola (2003): [335]
This in short time without gaining consensus:
Afaics Gitz ignored my WP:CITENEED editsum where I restore the content: [340]
I'm not convinced by Gitz’s editsum use of WP:LEADCITE, because that guidance states: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." This was why the Stola excerpt was added in the first place, months ago, establishing consensus and longterm article stability.
Afaics, after I restored the content to the lede, Gitz further removed the Stola (2003) excerpt on the editsum grounds it is "repetition" after he already added that very excerpt lower down the article, to a place where it is not of direct relevance to the preceding line of content:[341] So afaics, Gitz caused the repetition of Stola himself: when I restored it to the lede, he then used that repetition as fresh grounds for removal of the Stola pop-out from the lede.
Motive? On Jedwabne Pogrom Talk page, Gitz says: "The Germans were the triggering factor, the necessary condition: without them, there would have been no pogrom. The local population, however, was not directed by the Germans, but acted autonomously." Gitz may want this to be true, but it isn’t supported by the source.
The Stola pop-out excerpt says, "members of the administration, usually with German gendarmes, visited Polish residents" and refers to the Polish murderers as "conscripts".
Presence of German armed force is verifiable to the excerpt; by definition, conscripts are not autonomous. Stola and Gitz have differing points of view, so he buried Stola. Whatever convincing arguments Gitz may or may not have to remove the Stola excerpt from the lede, this was not the way to do it.
Gitz could have learned from his TBAN; much like GCB (hat-tip K.e.coffman), he seems aggrieved rather than educated by it. Rather than imposing his point of view on Wikipedia by repeatedly removing the Stola pop-out from the lede, Gitz could have established consensus in a collegial manner on the Talk page.
Instead, we have Gitz's adversarial editing at Jedwabne Pogrom then evidence from it filed against his perceived rival: [342]. Potentially boomerang #2.
Interaction ban is not the solution, it will cause proxy fights through provocative editing in the topic area without direct contact. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Callanecc
Summarised at /Summary#Summary of evidence involving Volunteer Marek
|
---|
I haven't seen this presented yet so I thought I'd add it. Clerks - if it's already been noted please feel free to remove this section. In January I gave Volunteer Marek an indefinite 'civility' restriction under discretionary sanctions with the following wording:
This was in response to this AE thread and a pattern of responding with incivility, accusations and personal attacks usually in response to some sort of baiting. Evidence for this is in the AE thread. No comment on its general effectiveness as I've not looked through VM's contribs to check for any breaches but I will note that VM has contacted me offwiki with an editor behaviour concern rather than posting it onwiki which is essentially what this restriction was designed to do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
|
Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable
( withdrawn )
Evidence presented by Paul Siebert
POV-laden edits and Brownian ratchet
First, I would like to point ArbCom's attention at one dangerous phenomenon: support of a POV-laden content introduced by others
.
Here I describe a situation when some text was modified and blatantly distorted by some SPI. However, other users, who endorse this text, and claim that the sources "were not misrepresented on the page, as far as I can see", cannot be sanctioned per our policy, because they didn't do any edits, they just expressed their view.
This resembles a Brownian ratchet: to create a POV content, it is sufficient to support some edits made by POV-pushing IPs or SPI, and revert the edits made by the users who advocate the opposite POV. There is no risk in that strategy, because you do not introduce the POV by yourself: a support of someone's obviously false statement can be presented just as a good faith mistake.
The only solution to this problem is to make users responsible for the content they support during talk page or AE discussions.
My Very Best Wishes
Although I initially didn't want to request for any sanctions, I realized that there is one exception. I am requesting that severe action should be taken against one user @My very best wishes:. In connection to that I am requesting an extension of the standard word limit, or, if ArbCom considers it preferrable, I can submit the below section as a separate case.
During last decade, I am avoiding interaction with that user: I do not comment on his posts and do not respond to him, because I decided to let this conflict die. However, the post made by MVBW during the TangraBellam AE demonstrated that he continues to make "good faith mistakes", which create a very toxic environment that make it impossible for good users to edit articles productively. One reason why I essentially stopped editing many of WWII related topics is that there is a constant risk that MVBW may come and derail the discussion.
Below, I am going to support claims with facts. Some of those examples only tangentially relate to the Holocaust in Poland topic, but I have to introduce it to give a full picture.
False accusation of sockpuppetry
In 04:46, 8 December 2019 MVBW accused me of being Icewhiz's sockpuppet. I addressed to an admin to resolve this situation. During this discussion, the admin explained to MVBW that he had to provide evidences in support of his accusation. MVBW edits his initial SPI post. Note, there is no mention of my sockpuppetry anymore, so it becomes totally unclear why did I write to Bbb23: I am presented as an idiot, it looks like I've complained on an accusation that never was. However, in the very same post, MVBW is now alleging that I am coordinating my activity with another user (or that user is coordinating their activity with me). What is a reason for throwing that dirt at me? The answer can be found in the story that happened in 2009.
EEML archive
I didn't present any evidenced against the EEML members in 2009, and I still believe that my decision was correct. Later I decided to read the EEML archive, where, as I was told, they were discussing me. Here, I am not going to name any other EEML members (actually, their behaviour was honest: their tone about me during on-Wiki and off-Wiki communication was essentially the same. The only exception was MVBW (Biophys)). I am not discussing the content of their emails, I am providing just the time and date (they can be independently verified by anyone).
- On 07 September 2009 14:57, during a discussion about me, one EEML member proposed a hypothesis about my nickname's origin: they considered me as a serious opponent, and were trying to find some method to stop me (but they did no real harm to me, so I am not going to revisit this case).
- On 10 September 2009 19:18, Biophys asked a "friendly question" (see the edit summary)
- On 10 September 2009 21:42, Biophys discussed the results of our conversation in a context of a possibility of their usage at ANI. (Note, I really believed our communication was friendly.)
I believe I need no further evidences for stopping any interaction with this user.
Gas van
This story is only tangentially related to the topic, but that is important. That was the only case when MVBW was able to really harm me. During the ANI about a totally unrelated topic, MVBW made this post. That short post contained four false claims.
- MVBW claimed that I removed the sources which I didn't like, but the version of the article after I made my last edit still contains the sources that I ostensibly deleted: Albatz, Merridale, and other sources listed in ref#2.
- MVBW claimed that I removed the "Nober Prize winner" (Solzhenitsyn) whom I "didn't like", but that source was in the article by the time MVBW made his post (see the above diff)
- Contrary to his claim, this removal was not a final one: later, we achieved a consensus to keep it, and I observed it (see the above diff).
- “A long discussion” MVBW refers to was the very same discussion mentioned by Ealdgyth in the Gas van section. However, I was one (out of two users) who was trying to fix all this biased context, whereas MVBW was the user who opposed to that, and it was him who was acting against consensus, not me.
All this lie looked so obvious to me that I decided not to defend myself, which, as I retrospectively realized was a mistake. To my big surprise, the community easily accepted this lie, and no one tried to check MVBW’s “facts”. As a result, I became redundantly angry during the rest of that discussion, which finally led to my topic ban.
Evidence presented by Buffs
While I am not particularly comfortable posting this information on the Poland ARBCOM case publicly given the vitriolic nature of the posting. I feel that these details should be pointed out:
VM
- 2011: a warning not to continue nationalist edit wars
- 2012: blocked for disruption in ARBEE areas
- 2013: IBAN
- 2015: warned for civility
- 2018: strongly warned against casting general aspersions against editors
- 2019: topic ban (a big note: it was later overturned, but not before he incurred a block for 72 hours for violating it)
- 2023: warned for civility
GCB
Both/others
- Off wiki comments by multiple users demonstrating clear battleground mentality and wanting to "get back" (paraphrased) at others for perceived wrongs. Such interactions are not confined to VM and GCB.
GCB and VM have a battleground mentality
VM and GCB have engaged in a battleground mentality both in the past and in the present. They both continue to exhibit it. In the above examples, I think it's extremely important to note that opposition to VM/GCB/et al is not synonymous with support for Icewhiz or this essay/paper. Any framing of such a discussion in that manner of equating such opposition is a red herring/ad hominem and is inherently against the principles of WP. Not only should it be discounted, but it should be WP:BOOMERANGed back on the person making the charge. I don't doubt that extremists are pushing an agenda here on all sides. I also don't doubt that VM/GCB mean well in their own heart. But, at best, they have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot control their behavior/reactions to the collegial manner required on WP. At worst, they appear to have engaged in advocacy via a battleground mentality. Neither is acceptable on WP and should be addressed accordingly Any editors who demonstrate such behavior, especially over such an extended period of time should be restricted, banned, or blocked. Why this hasn't been handled by an Admin via WP:ARBEE is beyond me. Perhaps encouragement to address such issues by ArbCom would help the matter. (if such conclusions are not permitted, please feel free to strike/delete).
Evidence presented by Jehochman
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Volunteer Marek accuses perceived adversaries of colluding with Icewhiz and foments a battlegroundI had intended not to present evidence against anyone, but I will make an exception for the editor who has taken shots at my reputation behind my back, and without notifying me. As I said before, and as I will say again, I did not collude with Icewhiz in my prior case request. When I filed the 2021/22 request for arbitration, I had no memory of Icewhiz. He contacted me, and in my usual way, I optimistically (and incorrectly) assumed good faith. When I learned why I shouldn't, I cut off contact with him. Volunteer Marek has been talking smack about me on Wikipediocracy:
These posts should be considered in formulating findings and remedies. This is needless battleground behavior by VM. I left him alone, but he was unable to control himself. |
Evidence presented by Wugapodes
Committee statement on private request received in 2022
In 2022, the Arbitration Committee received a private request for action against an editor for harassment in this topic area. The Arbitration Committee declined to consider the matter privately and advised the requester to file a request publicly. Subsequently a submission was made to T&S alleging harassment, which was deferred to ArbCom per policy for handling under their existing ArbCom procedures. |
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.