User:Volunteer Marek/EvidenceCase

WP:PA, false accusations
In his requests for this ArbCom case Icewhiz first says "As other countries, a small minority advocates Holocaust denial/distortion in Poland." He goes on to list two users who haven't been active in this topic area for a long time. He then lists ... me. This is a clear, false and very disgusting, insinuation against me. Icewhiz does not present a SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE to support this smear. It's a straight up lie and I got understandably very angry about this smear as any normal person would. In my view, this by itself is grounds for an indefinite ban per WP:NOTHERE until Icewhiz promises not to smear people in this manner.

Icewhiz has made other personal attacks and levied other false accusation but this one is so bad that it kind of overshadows the rest.

WP:BLPVIO
Icewhiz attacks sources, in particular scholars, who don't fit in with his POV

1.
 * Falsely claims that historian Krajewski was "accused of anti-semitism". He was not. Icewhiz backs up his smear by providing sources which discuss OTHER people who were accused. In fact, source doesn't even mention Krajewski
 * When confronted with the above BLP violation at WP:AE, Icewhiz claims he "specifically excluded {Krajewski}" from his list of "sources accused of anti-semitism". He did no such thing, Here is the discussion again. Icewhiz knew admins were watching and that this was indeed a serious matter so he took a gamble: he lied and hoped the admins wouldn't check the diffs. It worked

2.
 * Uses disparaging terms ("non-scientific missionary style" - I have no idea what "missionary style" is even supposed to mean in *this* context) to refer to a publication by a professional historian in a scholarly journal

3.
 * Icewhiz accuses historian Piotr Gontarczyk of having a "record of attacking established scholarship in the field" without any backing.
 * I asked Icewhiz to provide a source to support this BLP attack . Icewhiz responded by providing a source which… doesn't say anything like that at all.
 * My second response is also perfectly civil although at this point Icewhiz obtusness and obfuscation is becoming irritating . Icewhiz then falsely asserts that he's provided the sources to back up the BLP attack. He hasn't. He provided a source which said something else.
 * I asked Icewhiz THREE times to either back up his attack on a BLP with sources or strike it. He didn't do so. Instead he provided an irrelevant source and then falsely claimed his BLP attack was justified.

4.
 * Aside from the unsourced and false assertion about content, Icewhiz also attacks the historian Norman Davies, by claiming he is "divisive" and speculates and insinuates that Davies' writings on the subjects caused him not to get tenure at Stanford. Both claims are unsourced and egregious BLP violations.

5.
 * Doubles down on the attack on Davies made in previous comment by citing an editor of American Conservative magazine stating that Poles "lack common sense" who published far-right white supremacist Steve Sailer (apologies for the link)

6.
 * Attack on historian Timothy Snyder. Icewhiz claims "Snyder is far from an unbiased source". Source provided by Icewhiz says nothing of the sort (indeed it says that Snyder has been critical of present Polish government)

7.
 * "Snyder belongs to a particular historical camp" (corrected spelling) Again the source, same as above, says no such thing

8.
 * Demands that other editors prove that an academic is "uncontroversial" rather than vice versa. This is turning our BLP policy on its head.

9.
 * Misrepresents sources and subjects in a BLP vio on Bogdan Musial. Specifically first source is trashy (and misrepresent subject), second source is slightly better but it doesn't say what Icewhiz claims it says. Note historian Israel Gutman says more or less same thing as Musial here

10.
 * Sneaky BLP vio via "damning with faint praise" by including inane info about "the book seems to have not printing errors" (sic)

11. Between this and this edit
 * Icewhiz extended and skewed the coverage of the Professor's tenure decision at Stanford to portray him in a negative light (in addition to BLP also violates UNDUE). He subsequently edit warred to keep the BLP vio in

12.
 * Add negative info to another BLP of a historian based on a singular WP:REDFLAG source. Icewhiz really likes this source because it is so negative and biased - he's tried using it in almost a dozen different articles.

13.
 * More info being added. Sources are misrepresented, particularly the claim that "approach which is not supported by most scholars". This idea of "radical negation", whatever that is suppose to be is peculiar to one of the sources and is not widely used in literature. At very least should be attributed.


 * Cherry picked sources to add negative info to a BLP. Worse, the sources are misrepresented. BLP subject did NOT "assert that "neo-Stalinism" is dominant since the 1960s in American social sciences and that most American historians (...) are engaged in "neo-Stalinism". The historian criticized a particular "school of Polish historical study” (quote from source) NOT "American social sciences" or "most American historians" as Icewhiz falsely pretends.

Falsely claims that a BLP's essay was subject to a "scathing critique" by Israel Gutman. Nonsense. Source is here. Gutman actually says "I find many of (Krasnodebski's) observations to be quite accurate. I do have a few quibbles and I feel the need to fill in some details". Does that sound like a "scathing critique"? No. It's actually a mostly positive review which tries to provide broader context.

Based on a minor review in a minor journal Icewhiz claims a historian "bounced around academically" (not in the source) and based on this single review claims that the BLP subject is "somewhat notorious". WP:REDFLAG

WP:CPUSH
'''Icewhiz often makes a claim about a person or subject X, but then presents sources about person or subject Y and pretends that the second supports the first. '''

1.
 * Falsely claims that Polish sources have to "comply with the right version of history" "by law". To back up this assertion, Icewhiz provides a source about censorship … in Russia!?!

2.
 * Explicitly blames “the Polish people” (cuz you know, all Poles are the same), for … it being illegal for Polish editors to edit Polish Wikipedia. Except of course it’s not (needless to say, the sources he includes in his comment do not support anything of the sort. Icewhiz does this A LOT. Make a farcical claim then add in some irrelevant “citations” at the end to pretend that what he is saying is sourced.

3.
 * The comment misrepresents the source and makes exaggerated claims about ("WP:HOAX"!) but in the comment Icewhiz also makes it seem like the magazine Najwyzszy Czas! is being used as a source and provides some links. Except it isn't and the links are irrelevant.

4.
 * Icewhiz writes The NSZ is known as antisemitic,[1][2] killing many Jews.[3] VM: [11] The diff from me he includes has NOTHING to do with whether NSZ was anti-semitic (they were) and whether they killed Jews (they did) but Icewhiz's presentation falsely insinuates that it does. This is an extremely dishonest smear - I've removed far-right bullshit which tried to whitewash the organization myself

5.
 * Icewhiz writes This sort of discourse is present in the far-right Nasz Dziennik,[5] see also museum by Father Rydzyk.[6][7][8] after linking to one of my diffs. This makes it appear as if I used Nasz Dziennik or "Father Rydzyk" as sources or somehow supported them. It's complete nonsense. Icewhiz is attempting a smear-by-association. I've never used those as sources nor would I. The same statement grossly misrepresent my edit. Icewhiz falsely claims that I said that "most Poles were involved in rescue of Jews" (which would be false). That is not at all what the diff shows. I restored text which said that Poland had most Righteous Among Nations, which is true, and sourced. Likewise, he pretends that I said that "12 million Poles" were involved in rescue. No idea where he gets this from. He just.... made it up.

Icewhiz pretends that the dispute is about one thing, when it's actually about another

1.
 * Uses WP:MOS ETHNICITY as an excuse to remove info about the subject being involved in Stalinist crimes. Nobody here cares what ethnicity she was. But her involvement in Stalinist show trials is exactly what makes her notable. Note that Icewhiz repeats this false assertion in his evidence

2.
 * Red herrings: alleged anti-semitism in the Home Army. Quotes Tec and Zimmerman. Neither source supports such a blanket statement. This also has nothing to do with the text under dispute. It's just a deflection and Whataboutism
 * Another red herring by mentioning Uderzeniowe Batalione Kadrowe and ONR-Falanga, two Polish fascist groups. Except… the text and the article has nothing to do with either of these groups. They're unrelated to the dispute.

3.
 * Repeats the false assertion about irrelevant UBK and Falanga, repeats the false assertion about the source

4.
 * Icewhiz pretends that this is about restoring a banned user's edits or restoring "Jewish" to the lede. Actually, it's about undoing Icewhiz's blanking of the entire article . In his edit summary Icewhiz did NOT indicate that his concern was the subject's ethnicity in the lede (I couldn't care less either way). Once that became clear I removed it myself, which Icewhiz is well aware of - yet, he chooses to repeat the false accusation regardless.

5.
 * Icewhiz says this is "doubling-down" and "Counter to WP:MOSETHNICITY, offensive, and prejudicial." As he is well aware, my rationale for removing both "Polish" and "Jewish" from the lede is simply that it's already implied by the rest of the sentence I've explained this several times. Yet he pretends this is "offensive" somehow or "prejudicial". ???

6. and also in Evidence.
 * Icewhiz pretends that the dispute is over whether the legend of Esterka is fictional or not. It's not. Absolutely NOBODY here thinks this legend is factual. The dispute is about how sources describe the usage of the legend in literature. Icewhiz cherry picks a single sentence from the source to make it seem like this legend has been used only in anti-semitic ways. In fact, the legend has been used in both positive and negative ways in both Polish and Yiddish literature and art as the source makes abundantly clear (pg. 58+) (Icewhiz's search string makes it clear he was looking for cherry picked info to confirm an idea he already settled upon)


 * In this evidence piece Icewhiz falsely pretends that this is me "misrepresenting sources". No, this is me reverting a sock puppet of User:Kaiser von Europa, something which I repeatedly explained to Icewhiz. Icewhiz pretended that he WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ... except when he acknowledged my explanation in order to accuse me of making false allegations of sock puppetry (it's Kaiser, there's no doubt about it, ask User:Salvio Guiliano. KvE was banned from Wikipedia for pushing neo-Nazi POV. Icewhiz is defending his sockpuppet here because he finds it useful. That's some serious cynicism.)


 * Falsely pretends that this AfD was closed not just to move the article to a new name, but to also change its topic (so Icewhiz can WP:COATRACK it). See  for further explanation. Note the AfD itself was an instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING after an RM which didn't go Icewhiz's way.

Just straight up false claims


 * Falsely claims that the source is not Antony Polonsky. The excuse? It's an interview WITH Polonsky, so, according to Icewhiz, Polonsky "didn't write it" (presumably, whoever transcribed the interview did). I'm not kidding, that's the excuse. Here is the source. Direct quote from the source is provided as is translation on talk (per WP:V). So this isn't ignorance on Icewhiz's part. It's deliberate obfuscation. Characterization of source also false. Repeats same false claim on talk

Spurious POV tag, false edit summary. No idea what "national elements" is suppose to mean - appears to be an objection that article uses some Polish sources. There is no "fringe" sources in the article. Indeed the sources are mostly a left wing newspaper and an article in a scholarly journal Journal of Genocide Research

Under pretense of "trimming" removes multiple reliable sources and historians. Labels the controversy as a "Polish dispute" to trivialize it. Of course, without any sources. In fact, in addition to Polish historians, American and Israeli ones were also very critical of the subject's article.

Double Standards
'''When it suits his purpose, Icewhiz uses sources he previously rejected as unreliable. Or removes sources he previously insisted were reliable. Likewise for Wikipedia policies'''


 * Here Icewhiz has no qualms about using right wing (fronda.pl) and anti-semitic (prawy.pl) sources himself to make a false BLP violating attack on one of the historians he doesn't like. This is strange, since Icewhiz keeps insisting that he only wants to remove "fringe" and "far right" and "nationalist" sources. Yet here he is ADDING exactly these kinds of sources. To a BLP. Why? Because he wants to make the BLP subject look bad. The information in these sources is false, Chodakiewicz never wrote what is being attributed to him (surprise, surprise, crappy sources = false info). Subsequently Icewhiz would falsely claim that this edit was justified by WP:ABOUTSELF. Well, the first source is by Chodakiewicz but it DOES NOT say what Icewhiz claims it says. The second source is NOT by Chodakiewicz, it's a gross misrepresentation of him... so why is Icewhiz using it?


 * Claims a source is unreliable because it's "a Catholic publisher" (originally discounted it because it was just "Catholic"). What do you think would happen if someone tried to remove sources because "they were Jewish"? Or because "they were Muslim"? Or because "they were Protestant"? Makes other unfounded and unsourced claims about the source.


 * . Icewhiz often makes a big pretense on talk pages and drama boards of claiming that he only wants to use "high quality academic sources". Sure, he'll use "high quality academic sources"... when they match his POV. But he's also got no problem using sources by authors who specialize in books about ... catfish fishing . As long as these match his POV.


 * and but then the edit warring (together with Francois Robere)       In the first two diffs Icewhiz advocates that we use Antony Polonsky as a source. Fair enough, prominent historian. But then, when it turns out that Polonsky doesn't quite match Icewhiz's POV, Icewhiz (along with Francois Robere and Yanniv) proceed to edit war to REMOVE Polonsky from the article. Can't get more double standard than that.


 * Icewhiz has no qualms using low quality right wing sources when it suits his agenda

WP:BAIT
'''Icewhiz often makes claims so absurd that it's hard to see them as anything other than attempts to provoke and WP:BAIT other editors. These claims often have an ethnic aspect to them'''

1.
 * Approves of a statement made by an IP calling Nazi crimes against Poles "dirty propaganda". Also here. The IP editor who left the "dirty propaganda" comment looks like a sockpuppet of an indef banned neo-Nazi User:English Patriot Man . That's the second anti-Polish neo-Nazi sockpuppet, in addition to User:Kaiser von Europa defended by Icewhiz

2.
 * Actually compares Poland to North Korea and Iran in terms of freedom of press. It's completely false that the Polish government "outlaw(ed) writing about the complicity of the Polish state or nation in media publications". This is utter nonsense.

3.
 * Suggests/insinuates that it is illegal in Poland for editors to ... edit Polish Wikipedia about Polish Jewish topics. I’m sorry that’s just ridiculous. But it is indicative of the extremist views that Icewhiz holds regarding Poland.

4.
 * Explicitly blames “the Polish people” (cuz you know, all Poles are the same), for … it being illegal for Polish editors to edit Polish Wikipedia. Except of course it’s not (needless to say, the sources he includes in his comment do not support anything of the sort. See above)

5.
 * Derisively refers to the murder of Poles by Nazis as "Polocaust" (he's using the term ironically). Let's get this one clear - NOBODY is claiming that the murder of Poles by the Nazis is comparable to the Holocaust, which describes the Nazi extermination of Jews and is historically unique. But the killing of Poles was extensive (1.8 to 1.9 million ethnic Poles murdered) and trivializing it, dismissing it, jeering, almost laughing at it is very very offensive. Only reason to do it is to taunt other editors.

5.
 * Misleading and deliberately provocative edit summary. The comparison between the Home Army (anti-Nazi fighters) and the Nazi Party is intentionally offensive and appears intended to provoke. It's like comparing the Civil Rights movement to the KKK. Removes Yad Vashem as source. See my response for further clarification. (Also, article text recognizes individuals not the organization as Icewhiz falsely claims)

6.
 * Blatantly falsely claims "I did not compare the Home Army to the Nazi Party" which is exactly what he did (see previous) diff. This is simply gaslighting . After denying he made the comparison, Icewhiz proceeds to… make the comparison again. Sources provided by Icewhiz do not make a comparison between Nazis and Home Army (obviously, since such a comparison would be ridiculous). It is also completely false that the text "extends recognition to the organization as a whole". The text refers to individuals.

7.
 * Nonsensical claim that content about the Home Army is not actually about the Home Army.

8.
 * Without some historical background it's probably hard to appreciate how obnoxious this comment is. Icewhiz claims that "The AK's purpose was not to fight the Germans". The whole freakin' raison d'etre of the Home Army (AK) was to fight the Germans. This is like saying "the purpose of Washington's Continental Army was not to fight the British, but to establish a post-national government". Note that Icewhiz's claims are, obviously, unsourced (because no reliable source would say something so absurd)

9.
 * Tries to unilaterally declare ALL Polish media sources post 2018 unreliable. His claims about the Polish Holocaust law (as stupid as that law is) are false. No journalists face any sanctions, this is just absurd

10.
 * Repeats the claim. At least tries to back it up with a link to Freedom House. Here is the thing. Poland has a higher rating (14/16) in terms of "Freedom of Expression", including free press, than Israel (12/16) and only slightly below that of US . By this logic we shouldn't use Israeli sources on either this topic area or in Israel-Palestine dispute. Has Icewhiz proposed declaring all Israeli sources unreliable on I-P topics where he's active? Didn't think so.

11.
 * Falsely claims that Polish sources have to "comply with the right version of history" "by law". To back up this assertion, Icewhiz provides a source about censorship … in Russia!?!

12.
 * Trivializes and dismisses Polish suffering during WW2 at the hands of the Nazis ("with hagiagraphical depictions of Polish suffering" (sic)). Comment is actually irrelevant to the discussion so it's purpose looks merely to provoke other editors


 * Please see the entire discussion. Another editor lists several high quality sources. Icewhiz contends that we can ignore these sources because the matter was, quote, "adjudicated in a Soviet court ". So because a Stalinist court said all is well and good, we can throw Wikipedia policy of WP:RS out the window.