Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision

PD update
Owing principally to a workload arising out of WP:FRAMBAN, we are running several days behind schedule and have not yet finished drafting a proposed decision (PD). Thank you for waiting patiently. I and my colleagues are aware you are waiting and will have a decision published for voting as soon as possible. AGK &#9632;  21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to update everybody: We're aiming to have a PD early next week. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked on the mailing list if there are any updates for this case. SQL Query me!  02:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, all. I think I was a tad too optimistic in my previous post, and worse, didn't come back to point that out when it became obvious. I don't think I have a specific time frame but the drafters might. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

About
a month late, the drafters are yet to specify any approximate timeline for posting the PD, parties are back to waging the same battles even over here ..... &#x222F; WBG converse 12:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I know...
...that there are major, important distractions that the Committee must deal with, but really, over a month late for the PD seems like it should be a wake-up call for the drafting Arbs, and. Can the community and the participants at the very least get a realistic idea of when the PD can be expected? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware, we're significantly late. We initially had 3 drafters on this case, but one has left the committee, and I have moved over to taking point on the Fram case. This leaves a single arbitrator to manage one of the most complex / content heavy cases we've had in a little while. We probably could have suspended the case, while we dealt with the one that was at a higher priority to the community as a whole, but we chose not to, leading to one of our longest delays in recent years.
 * I will say that having looked at the drafting process, the vast majority is written, only a couple more findings need to be done. I don't have a specific date for you, but I will tentatively say "soon". is that a fair assessment? WormTT(talk) 09:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * -- ?? &#x222F; WBG converse 11:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've nudged the clerk's mailing list to try to get a response. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here’s a suggestion. Have this proposed decision be due 1 week after the Fram’s case is over. Is that alright, ?  starship .paint  (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I note AGK hasn't edited since 21 August, and hasn't edited this case since longer ago than that. Have the arbs heard from them more recently than their last edit? If not is Worm That Turned or any other arb prepared to take responsibility for getting a PD out? Does Starship.paint's 1 week after the Fram case PD seem achievable? Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * this time without the typos. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, even if it's an extra two weeks after the Fram decision, I'm fine with it. There simply has to be a commitment, something tangible.  starship  .paint  (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Myself and a few clerks now have raised the outstanding timeline and increasingly wait for the PDs to be posted. The drafters have already done some work on the PDs, so I have proposed that the rough draft to be posted with the understanding it is not ready for voting. Additions and revisions can be discussed with the consultation of the community. When things are in better shape, voting may begin. Also, I have asked if others drafters could be added, similar to the Rama case. Mkdw  talk 19:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All positive things. Thanks .  starship .paint  (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All positive things. Thanks .  starship .paint  (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow up by MJL
Any word on how this motion will effect this case? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC) (2) You should be taking seriously the fact someone is trying to impersonate you. (3) Just an FYI, Icewhiz was recently blocked as an AE action. (4) I'd be awfully skeptical of a policy that made it mandatory to consent to CU in order to participate in arbitration. Some people rather like their privacy. (5) I like the new signature. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC) You're a great content editor, so it really kills me inside to see you spend so much time worrying about this instead of improving article sourcing. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Also, I really don't get your reordering names on a list has to be Holocaust denial when the phrase used by Icewhiz was Holocaust denial/distortion (inclusive). It seems pretty clear that it is distortion. It wouldn't be Holocaust denial to say you think there were a million more Jewish people who died than has been been reported by academics; it's distortion. You may mean denial as a form of intent rather than action, but that just seems needlessly complicated because Icewhiz said distortion anyways. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Regardless, the primary concern I would have is how this is a BLP violation. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * own section, please. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) Please don't shout.
 * Please just accept that Poeticbent is gone and likely isn't going to come back without an exceptional change in circumstances. The fact that you can't just this go is why I made this proposal.
 * Polocaust is probably not derogatory (I believe it reasonable to say in certain contexts it could be), but it certainly is a politically charged term and unnecessarily inflammatory.
 * really isn't an inflammatory term IMO; it's the term used by the Polish government itself &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really though, all I am saying is that it has come to light that certain editors find the term offensive all with a variety of backgrounds. I'm not saying Icewhiz should be sanctioned over it by any means, but I do think we should avoid its use as a term in favor of much more specific language where possible.

Some thoughts
I was going through the workshop and evidence phases again, and I think the committee might have overlooked further evidence in 's favor. This FoF disregards a lot of context here. In my evidence, I went over VM's past history at Arbcom (which included sanctions that were later repealed for good behavoir). Icewhiz on the other hand, up until this case request, actually had a clean block log (couldn't find any formal admin warnings as well after quick review). Really, if he didn't waste a lot their time with trying to get Poeticbent sanctioned, then Icewhiz might have made a better case for themselves throughout these proceedings (my proposed FoF). A topic ban is clearly not the remedy for that, though. I've rethought about this, and I think I mostly agree with now. I propose, in lieu of selected sanctions, that my proposed admonishment be considered as a possibility. Could you please pass along this concern to the committee? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz's problem is that he has high standards for pretty much everything. It works really great when getting sources for an article, but it works less well for dealing with people here sometimes. It doesn't help he doesn't let certain perceived injustices go. 's problem is that he feels misunderstood, gets frustrated, and (almost on cue) attacks who-or-what-ever he thinks is the reason. Disputes frequently become personal and unbearable, but I don't think he even realizes it himself. VM's an editor of his time; these types of outbursts were completely acceptable for pretty much his entire editing career. His problem is not really content; it's his conduct is generally considered unacceptable nowadays. Without thinking about what the other party did, I encourage both to reflect on how their own actions led to the current situation. There's plenty that could've been done better. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Arbcom doesn't weigh in on content disputes which was why I proposed this. If you wanted more people to be aware of this exact problem, you could have just posted at WT:POLAND WT:MILHIST and stated your concerns succinctly. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also just want to say that this:
 * The simplest answer for why a conspiracy theory was able to stand for so long is the same reason why this obvious promotional edit had to wait almost two months to be reverted. We're only people here. There's no single person or group responsible for Wikipedia's content. We make mistakes, things slip through, and no one notices until it's been there for a long time.
 * Wow.. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I don't think you felt a lack of understanding from Icewhiz. You clearly feel misunderstood in your situation. Also, I have been insulted on this website and told I deserved sanctions before (recently in fact). I know painfully and intimately what it can be like. I don't recall ever doing anything similar to attacking back, though. You should really read this and this for how I reacted. I guess being called an incompetent drama-monger might not be similar enough to your experiences here.. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by François Robere
Are the Arbs taking note of ongoing affairs in the topic area? In the past week we've had: François Robere (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Editors attempt to exclude antisemitism (or some expressions thereof) and Islamophobia from Racism in Poland, shifting the focus of Racism in Poland from minorities to the Polish majority.
 * 2) Editors attempt to censor RS-backed statements that compare antisemitism and Islamophobia in Islamophobia in Poland.
 * 3) One editor inserting a whole pile of PRIMARY, cherry-picked or otherwise misrepresented sources in Racism in Poland.
 * 4) Same editor violates BLP and SYNTH in an attempt to discredit Jan T. Gross. They're backed by other editors, who then copy the offending content to Golden Harvest (book).
 * 5) Editors reject consensus of a move discussion in a push to retitle sections in Jewish ghettos in Europe.
 * 6) A new editor pops up in the discussion ; seems to have working knowledge of Wikipedia and uses similar expressions to another editor - indications of a possible SOCK.
 * Asking the Arbs to review these thread and advise. Molobo has been piling on PRIMARY and/or irrelevant sources on a single statement (see lead here) and evading discussion. It's getting ridiculous: after claiming Prussia was a "region in Poland" ("I am sorry that I didn't realize you didn't knew that") and asking that I enumerate my objections in the very thread I opened to discuss my objections, I've posted a 15 point numbered list to which he replied with "Please could you number your statements". Molobo's conduct is clearly intended to wear out one's patience - a disruptive and provocative behavior if ever was one - that should be dealt with firmly. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And it continues. François Robere (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting the effectiveness of this case in resolving disputes within the topic area, that we now have this. François Robere (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Molobo

 * 1) There was no "wholesale deletion of information on Nazi atrocities". Those are the bad sources I mentioned in §3, which the Arbs are welcome to examine themselves. Molobo has been mentioned in this case by both Ealdgyth and myself; this is an example why.
 * 2) The admins are also welcome to examine my alternative formulation, which mirrors what we've achieved at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland after a lengthy discussion; it reflects the general consensus in the field, and does not in any way understate any nation's suffering. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply to VM

 * 1) You'll notice I'm not actually defending that specific inclusion anywhere; rather, I object to the wholesale trimming of anything that seems even mildly offensive to some of the other editors, which is why I continue supporting reverting to an older revision, of which that 13th cen. reference happens to be part, as a baseline from which we can discuss everything else. However, I did provide a quote in NPOVN from George M. Fredrickson's Racism: A Short History, which ties all of it together. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Active sockmaster
Please alert the Arbs to an active sockmaster in the topic area. François Robere (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: VM: two other editors publicly supported the CU ( and ) which resulted in the discovery of five more socks, so saying it was "bogus" seems... well, bogus. François Robere (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

On proposed decisions and findings of fact

 * FOF 4:
 * We have "Francophile", "Anglophile"; what's so wrong with "Polophile" (or Polophilic)?
 * You can disagree with Icewhiz's comparison on any number of grounds, but say that it's "unnecessarily inflammatory" and sanction him for it? We're talking a law that drew criticisms from anyone from Yad Vashem to Human Rights Watch, so mentioning Iran and NK in that particular context isn't entirely, completely, unnecessarily and inflammatorily out of place. Unless, of course, we're not allowed to discuss censorship...
 * FOF 5: "Both parties" is a false equivalence: you only give one example of Icewhiz "assuming the worst", while VM had repeatedly against several editors even on case pages (eg. here). The two are really not the same. Also, I find it curious you specifically avoided the terms "personal attacks" and "aspersions" while describing some of those behaviors.
 * FOF 10: These aren't some "random smears" of respectable scholars - these are some highly controversial, well-off-mainstream scholars (MJC, EK). Again, there are a bunch of arguments you can make on Icewhiz's characterization of sources, but putting it out there like the sort of career-wrecking, lawsuit-motivating material WP:BLP was meant to prevent is beyond misleading. What's more, by focusing this topic-wide assertion on Icewhiz, you're neglecting the more frequent and more egregious attacks made by others against scholars like Jan Gross, Jan Grabowski, Shmuel Krakowski and Joanna Michlic.
 * I notice you've said little about administerial conduct in this case. You list 10 AE cases spread over a year (FOF 3), but you don't opine on why we had so many. You mention a "positively-reviewed" sourcing restriction (FOF 13), but you don't mention that such restrictions were requested and ignored several times. You mentioned RSN and RfCs (FOF 12), but not the admin boards. You mentioned Icewhiz's recent block (FOF 14), but nothing about its circumstances or overwhelming disagreement of the community with the decision.
 * PR 2: There's very little in the FOF section to justify a bilateral I-ban.
 * PR 3: There's very little in the FOF section to justify a T-ban too. We're talking about a prolific editor who has presented a strong case on the issues that are so ubiquitous in this topic area, and has done more than just about anyone else to resolve them. Do you really think a year-long T-ban would benefit the topic area?
 * PR 4: As for VM, I don't think a T-ban is necessarily the solution here either. The problem with VM isn't scholarly abilities or extreme bias - it's his temper. Address that, and everything else is resolved (POV and sourcing issues included); but obviously you can't address that by a simple T-ban.

In short, I feel the committee took the easy route - a couple of I-bans and T-bans, some statements of principle, and "cheers everyone, let's go home." The only effective thing to come out of it is the sourcing restriction, and we didn't really need a full case for that. Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding of the committee's role: we view it as a "high court" of sorts, while it views itself as a narrow "court of appeals". We expect re/solutions, while they just wants to "keep the flames down". Given how long this case took to resolve, one could've reasonably expected more thorough solutions. François Robere (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the point of Icewhiz referring to PB was to illustrate how deep and long-ingrained some of these "hoaxes" (in Wiki-parlance) were. I don't think it was the right way to do it, but I completely agree on the core matter; and I think ArbCom's focus on VM and Icewhiz, while beneficial in some ways (eg. not involving some of the other editors, such as myself), misses the big picture in others. Tatzref remains at large, MyMoloboaccount is doing "business as usual" in a new set of articles with a fresh set of editors, Xx236 is still trying to get the lot of you sued, and you're concerned with Icewhiz using the term "outlandish". François Robere (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply to SashiRolls
What do you read from this? François Robere (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Opabinia regalis
Re: your comment on FOF 3: to put it bluntly, the reason this didn't become a full case earlier is because the admins are apathetic, and no one trusts the Arbs. François Robere (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply to WBG
I just want to note the overall lack of interaction between the Arbs and the parties - no questions, no answers and no regulation (or nearly none); a case in absentia, I just haven't decided of whom. Unsurprisingly, the results are contested by virtually all sides; the case is a dud, and thank you all for participating! François Robere (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment by MyMoloboaccount
Unfortunately since the case has happened there has been continued escalation of borderline flaming attempts and repeated behavior described in the case like attempts to minimize Nazi atrocities towards Polish population while overemphasizing antisemitism in Poland Icewhiz ignored question what POV does it represent to state that Poland was occupied by Nazis.
 * Wholesale deletion of information on Nazi atrocities and racist policy of Nazis in Poland
 * Naming genocide of Poles "limited action" by Germans, and writing that when describing Poland in WW and writing about Polish victims of Nazi Germany "Poles should appear last"
 * Describing genocide of Poles in punctuation marks as Polish "genocide"
 * Claims by Icewhiz that stating Poland was occupied by Nazis is Stressing the occupation is redundant, and is aligned with a particular POV
 * Describing (in context of World War 2 Nazi racist atrocities) the Holocaust as  mainly German(excluding Polish role), which subtly tries to impose it as German-Polish undertaking, and that racism was the doing of the church

This sadly paints a picture where Nazi atrocities are being removed or denied as soon as they are concerning Poles and where Holocaust is being described as some German-Polish operation.The OR goes even further to the point where 13th century Poland has been described as racist state motivated by racial ideology rather than religious strife(note that NONE of the sources used by Icewhiz claim the conflict in 13th was motivated by racist ideology of thought rather than religion). --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Simply untrue, scholarly and expert sources have been added about Nazi atrocities in Poland against Polish population. In return FR has started denying that Nazis genocided Polish population and engaged in mass deletion of sources and infromation about Nazi racist policies in Poland such as War and Genocide: Essays in Honour of Jeremy Noakes Jeremy Noakes, Neil Gregory University of Exeter Press, 2005(that stated In 1942 Nazi racial discrimination was enshrined in Decree on Penal Law for Poles and Jews) and others. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Reply to Icewhiz
 * The first case is about editors trying to claim Original Research that Poland in 13th was engaged in racist persecution of Jews.Which is simply absurd, there was religious strife for sure, but racism wasn't the motivation for these actions and conflicts, just like Crusades were motivated by religion rather than racism.Nobody pushed for removal of sourced information about racism in 19th or 20th century, just against bizarre claims not supported by any sources.
 * One editor inserting a whole pile of PRIMARY, cherry-picked or otherwise misrepresented sources in Racism in Poland .
 * Anti-Polish as a word is hardly equal to antisemitism, for example read

Joanna B. Michlic Therefore I also reject the perspective that equates postwar anti-Polish stereotyping by Jews with the anti-Jewish idioms What I would indeed find toxic, is constant comparisons of Poland to Nazi Germany, inability to engage in dialogoue with numerous successive Polish editors, creating attack pages,deleting any information stating otherwise,and inability to interpret and frame intereactions and portayal of Poland in any other context besides racist antisemitism. As the English proverb states: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Carolyn Slutsky, “March of the Living: Confronting Anti-Polish Stereotypes,” in Robert Cherry and Annamaria Orla-Bukowska (eds), Rethinking Poles and Jews:Troubled Past, Brighter Future 
 * or author who you were using and are fond of ''Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the the Present

Couple of loose notes and observations. I confess that I don't know at the current moment how to remedy this, all I can say is that I don't believe this will resolve the issue in the long term. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some topics on World War and other history events are very niche and we won't find them covered widely in English based publications.For example the atrocities of Wehrmacht in 1939 Poland or events in Eastern Poland under Soviet Occupation lack sufficient work cover in English.We should make a point that while preferred, non-English sources shouldn't be excluded.
 * I note that continued battleground behavior and refusal to accept any wrongdoing by Icewhiz above is unfortunately troubling and doesn't bode well for future behavior. Icewhiz was already prohibited from editing these topics before-it didn't help and he returned with tendentious editing into this area. As mentioned in this case, there is an obsession here about denial of Nazi atrocities against ethnic Poles(such as Poles being subject to Nazi genocide(as it was defined by Nuremberg Trial proceedings) and being classified as subhumans), generalizing Poles as a whole as antisemites, and attempts to compare Poland to Nazi Germany. I am afraid that I see no effort by Icewhiz to acknowledge that this is an issue he needs to work on, or that he has any bias at all regading these subjects.If Icewhiz is convinced that he is right and was just wrongly punished, we will see again in one year the same problems with edits trying to remove information about Nazi atrocities against Poles, attempts to show Poland as Nazi Germany etc...As such it will be just postponing further cases and calls for admin intervention.

Comments by Volunteer Marek
Re: Francois Robere's claims and MyMoloboaccount's comments (added after comment was moved):

The first one is not even about whether 13th century persecution of Jews was racial or religious. It's about the fact that what was a European-wide phenomenon is being ascribed to 13th century Poland as if it was unique. Icewhiz and FR are actually trying to blame Poland for the anti-semitic policies of the Lateran Council. In case anyone is confused, the Lateran is in Rome, the pope was an Italian, and the council was composed primarily of Frankish and Italian bishops from the Holy Roman Empire, and Poland didn't have diddly squat to do with it. Needless to say, the sources being used (and misrepresented) do not support the edits being pushed. It's just some weird obsession here, with cramming as much negative info into articles on Poland as possible, even if that info is false and not supported by sources. It's gotten REALLY tiresome. Like two years ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And it is a complete falsehood that "editors rejected the consensus of a RM discussion". That is a dishonest and disingenuous way of describing the dispute. NOBODY tried to undo any article names or move. Instead, Icewhiz basically claimed that because the name "Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" was rejected in favor of simply "Holocaust in Poland" (which is reasonable per WP:MOS) that gave him a carte blanche to go through out Wikipedia and remove the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2 wherever he liked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @Icewhiz
 * Re #1 As already explained, the first sentence of this text is NOT in the source. And there's NOTHING in that source about "setting up ghettos". Yes, the Catholic Church in Europe in the 13th century sought to separate Christians and Jews by putting Jews in ghettos. And these attempts - instituted by the Lateran Council in Rome - applied to Poland. However, there's NOTHING in the source about "placing Polish Jews in ghettos in 1266". The Church said one thing, the nobility and the dukes did another. Indeed, another source that was brought up implies that the first ghettos in Poland appeared only in the 16th century, three hundred years later. This is a misrepresentation of sources.


 * Re #2 As already explained, there is NO "circumventing consensus for title". Nobody wants to change the outcome of the RM with regard to the article's title. What multiple editors are objecting to is Icewhiz (and FR) going through a significant number of articles and removing the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2. Well, that, and the misleading, disingenuous and tendentious claims that the outcome of the RM is some kind of carte blanche to remove the fact of the occupation anywhere Icewhiz sees fit. Or for that matter, Icewhiz obnoxiously referring to the fact of German occupation as just a "particular POV". The whole WP:MOS thing was cooked up by Icewhiz after the first lame excuse fell through.


 * Re #3 Again, there is no "POV pushing" unless one sincerely believes that the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2 is a "particular POV". This is, needless to say, an extremist, fring and historically false assertion. I'm also not clear on how someone's statements on twitter are relevant here. "German occupied Poland" is actually the standard phrase used in the literature. For example by Timothy Snyder (not a "Polish nationalist" (sic)) or by the US Holocaust Museum (also not "Polish nationalists") , Israeli academics (also not "Polish nationalists") and the Scientific American (also not "Polish nationalists") , press agencies such as Reuters (also not "Polish nationalists") , prominent historians such as Martin Gilbert (also not a "Polish nationalist") (pgs 42, 47, 62 etc etc etc) and Joshua Zimmerman  (also not a "Polish nationalist") and so on and so forth. Hell, even Icewhiz's favorite author Jan Grabowski, that Icewhiz has tried to spam into as many articles about Poland as possible (because Grabowski's writings are so negative about Poles in WW2) uses the term: Betrayal and Murder in German-occupied Poland . Needless to say Grabowski is also not a "Polish nationalist". Basically, one of Icewhiz's tactics is to try and label anything that doesn't fit in with his fringe and extremist POV as "Polish nationalism"... even when it's something widely accepted among historians; Polish, Israeli, American, etc. This only illustrates that the WP:AGENDA Icewhiz is pursuing here and the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusade he's been on for the past two+ years is way out of the mainstream.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but disagreements about how WP:MOS should be applied are NOT usually "actionable unless an ArbCom case is open". That's absurd. I've never seen that. This is hyperbolic attempt to deflect from the fact that Icewhiz got caught inserting false information into an article with fake sourcing and I brought up the fact that THIS kind of behavior is ... usually very actionable. He's attempting to project. "I got caught doing something bad so I must quickly make up as many accusations as I can against the other party to change the topic!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz's newest - a detailed explanation with multiple sources is NOT a "tirade". This is just more of the same from Icewhiz. Likewise Icewhiz's disingenous "it's unfortunate" (oh yeah, sure) "that VM disagrees..." NO. I simply provided multiple reliable sources which illustrate just how fringe Icewhiz's views are and how WP:TENDENTIOUS it is for him to try to smear anyone who disagrees with him as a "Polish nationalist". According to Icewhiz that label apparently applies to American and Israeli historians (and Polish ones) as well as the US Holocaust Museum and the Yad Vashem institute. Wait wait wait... let me try this... Ahem. *Clears throat*...

It is unfortunate that Icewhiz disagrees with the US Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem Institute, Timothy Snyder, Joshua Zimmerman and even Jan Grabowski,

See? Phony "civility" is easy. But that doesn't change that this is a case of WP:CPUSHing fringe views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And also please alert the ArbCom that User:François Robere filed a completely bogus SPI report against me (it was under my username but after CU found, "unsurprisingly", nothing it was moved ). This is pretty good example of François Robere's WP:BATTLEGROUND. The decisions in this case need to address their behavior as well, especially in light of the evidence already presented.

(as an aside, I have no idea who or what these accounts are but freaking out because some single-edit-red-linked accounts made some edits and yelling about "WARNING! SOCKMASTER ACTIVE IN THE AREA!!!!" is a bit... over the top? But while we're here, I wouldn't mind if EVERYONE who's participating (whether as party or commentator) got their butts checkuser'd (in fact that should be standard policy for ArbCom cases)).  Volunteer Marek  20:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that this is someone "impersonating me" - that's FR's conjecture, cooked up after it became obvious that I wasn't sock puppeting, to excuse his filing the report against me. I don't know... maybe? Also, I wasn't shouting, I was parodying the shouting of others, and I know that there's no chance whatsoever that my proposal for check usering everyone in an ArbCom case would ever be accepted.

- the "bogus" part is that you filed it with bogus accusations against me.  Volunteer Marek  03:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding IBAN and "new" evidence
It is my understanding that while the parties subject to the IBAN "may post responses to the PD directly on the PD talk page" they need to do so without pinging or responding directly to the other party. I presume that the IBAN also would cover attempts to introduce new material as "evidence" that has not been mentioned in either Evidence or Workshop previously, or that has not been subject of the PD. Basically, the statements should address the PDs, and not seek to initiate new disputes. Is that correct?  Volunteer Marek  08:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Ideally, comments on the PD talk should respond to the PD; while they don't necessarily have to draw on the evidence already presented, it'd be nice. It's not a valid use of PD talk space to try to revive disputes that aren't relevant, though we will be somewhat lenient when comments are submitted in good faith. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 07:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Response to FoFs
Remedy 3.3.6 should be a "Finding of Fact" rather than a "Proposed Remedy", since it doesn't actually propose anything, no?  Volunteer Marek   06:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would guess that because it's something the committee is "doing" (it includes an apology) and isn't really a fact necessary to support or provide background for another remedy, the drafters felt it was more appropriate as a remedy than as an FoF. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's right. It could go in either place, really, but it seemed to make more sense in the "doing stuff" section. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess that'll work, it just seemed a bit strange as a remedy. Anyway, the statement is appreciated and I realize that this is a quite complicated case.  Volunteer Marek   08:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Overall I think these FoFs accurately reflect the evidence that has been submitted by parties (whether that evidence is convincing or not is a different question) which indicates that the Arbs have read it (if that sounds like I was worrying... I was, what with the delay and all). Here are my comments on the relevant FoFs :

Purpose of Wikipedia - agree with all of it

Proposed Findings of Fact


 * 1 and 2 - essentially agree


 * 3 In essence correct but actually an understatement. It misses the fact that User Yanniv was indef banned as well as the multiple blocks that Francois Robere has managed to accumulate in this topic area


 * 4 - this is the big one concerning me I guess. The first part. I acknowledge that I lost my temper and I apologize for that. However, here is the thing: you can't consider #4 in isolation as it is obviously related to to FoF #9. My "name calling" and such was in direct response to Icewhiz's "inappropriately and falsely linked Volunteer Marek to Holocaust denial". Holocaust denial is an awful thing to be accused of and I hope the committee considers this context and asks themselves if any normal person would not react in a similar manner. That's not an excuse but it is important context, particularly given the vicious, unsubstantiated and unprovoked smear by Icewhiz (for which he STILL has not apologized indicating that he's learned nothing from this case)


 * 5 - mmm.... honestly, if someone "makes something up", and does so repeatedly ... how else are you suppose to say that? Isn't the fact that someone made something up and inserted false text into Wikipedia a bigger issue? This is kind of shooting the messenger.


 * 6 Agree


 * 7 This is the one which I strongly take issue with. Myself and Icewhiz, at the time of the case, have edited 157 (one hundred fifty seven) articles together. That's A LOT. To cherry pick just ten of them, where I made edits after Icewhiz, presents a very misleading picture. This is true especially since out of those 157, on 115 (one hundred fifteen), which is also A LOT, the situation was reversed - Icewhiz followed me to those articles. I would ask that the wording be amended to at the very least indicate that Icewhiz followed MY edits.


 * 8 No issue


 * 9 I really think this is the big one. This isn't a trivial accusation. It's not a every day insult. It's not your usual Wikipedia-battlegrounding. It's not something to take lightly. Holocaust denial is in many countries, including Poland, a crime. By making such accusation, putting aside the fact that it's a horrible vicious thing to baselessly accuse someone of, Icewhiz is accusing others of committing what's considered a crime. This is very close to if not an outright WP:LEGALTHREAT and as I've pointed out repeatedly, this kind of thing usually merits an immediate indef block. Whatever else comes out of this case I hope that the committee understands how serious this matter is.


 * 10 This is the one that's second only to #9. We need to take WP:BLP very seriously on Wikipedia and there is absolutely no justification for fabricating and faking quotes from BLP subjects in order to smear them. WP:ABOUTSELF is irrelevant as it would only possibly be relevant if the text inserted was actually in the source. But it wasn't. It was Icewhiz, and Icewhiz only, who changed the words "Polish Stalinists" to "American Jews" to make the BLP subject appear anti-semitic.


 * 11 Kind of. Lots of disputes are actually about misrepresentation of sources that everyone agrees are reliable.


 * 12 Agree and sympathize. Wikipedia really needs to develop more rigorous and robust dispute resolution mechanisms for what is commonly called "content disputes". Virtually all disputes are actually "content disputes" when you get right down to it and frankly, we, as a community, are horrible at resolving these (and if DS worked then the Israel-Palestine topic area would be a beacon of friendly collaboration)


 * 13 This is somewhat Western-centric (actually just Anglo-Saxon-centric) outlook as publishing works differently in different countries. This actually requires that other countries follow the American/British model of scholarly publishing. But in many places there is an older, even more prestigious tradition, of scholars and academics engaging directly with the public through, for example pieces written by historians in dedicated magazines. I'm very concerned that this FoF would only serve to attenuate already existing WP:SYSTEMICBIAS that pervades our articles. We already have relevant and applicable language in WP:RS policy. At the same time I think *something* like this is needed, but I would rather that this is opened for discussion and decision to the community as a whole. ArbCom is not really suppose to rule on content issues, no?


 * 14 yes.

Proposed remedies


 * 1 Yes. However, the fact that Poeticbent (and that other fellah, Loosmark) should have never been a party to this case illustrates that Icewhiz got this case opened on false pretenses. He presented evidence against Poeticbent and then tried to shoe-horn me into it and associate me with it.


 * 2 I am fine with an interaction ban. Honestly, I want this guy as far away from me as possible, given the things he has said about me and the false smears he made against me. I would prefer a one way IBAN for Icewhiz but I understand that those should be generally avoided as they might invite WP:GAMEing. However, an IBAN by itself is unlikely to solve the underlying problem and will only likely lead to violations and gaming and "squatting" of some articles (by editing them first so that the other party can't). An IBAN will be effective if combined with remedy #3 however.


 * 3 Fully support. Before Icewhiz showed up this area saw occasional conflict and disputes. These were generally resolved, at least in the period 2012-2016, either amicably or with minimal drama. After Icewhiz showed up, the topic area exploded (same thing happened with the renewed fighting in Israel-Palestine topic). That is very telling. I think most long time editors involved in this topic area, including myself, are more than willing to listen to other's arguments, to consider our own biases, to engage with new sources. However, this is NOT possible when the person you are talking to attacks you personally, makes vile false accusations and blatantly violates Wikipedia policies (including BLP) by misrepresenting sources. I see this as a minimal remedy.


 * 4 Obviously I oppose. Here is the thing - the FoFs which find problems with my behavior have NOTHING to do with content. They are essentially about my interactions with Icewhiz as an editor. I've already addressed that. Unlike Icewhiz I have not violated Wikipedia's content policies such as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV or just the simple common sense rule that Wikipedia article text should actually reflect what a source says and not what an editor pretends it says. Icewhiz on the other hand, as reflected in the other FoFs has had problems with BOTH civility (making false accusations) and content (not just BLPs). If #2 is passed that should address any concerns about my interactions with Icewhiz and that means there is no reason to pass this remedy.


 * 5 As mentioned above, I think this is something that we should have a bigger conversation about. If the committee instructed someone to start an Request for Comment on the topic that would actually work better.


 * 6 Acknowledged and thank you.

One thing that I do think needs to be added is FoFs and Proposed Remedies concerning Francois Robere as he's been involved in these disputes almost as much as Icewhiz and almost ALWAYS (99.3% of the time) on Icewhiz's side to the extent that it's hard to distinguish their edits (though their tone is different)

 Volunteer Marek  22:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

More on sourcing restriction
This particular PD (Article sourcing expectations) #5 is just simply not well thought out. It says: "specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers". The problem is that these kinds of sources may be plentiful for... chemistry or biology topics or even something like American Civil War but they're actually pretty thin on the ground in THIS topic. And the restriction would eliminate a whole bunch of sources which are clearly reliable and almost essential. For example, Yad Vashem. YV is a "research institute" which is run by the Israeli government "dedicated to the scientific study of the Holocaust and genocide in general". It is not "academic" although many academics do work there. It puts out brief articles which are NOT "peer reviewed", for example.

Yad Vashem is a reliable source. It is a very useful reliable source. We use it on articles in this topic area a lot. And I don't think there's anyone here who would question the reliability of Yad Vashem in general.

But under this restriction, we would not be allowed to use Yad Vashem as a source because it's publications are not "peer-reviewed" (they're not even working papers really, more like quasi-encyclopedic summaries). That would be *extremely* detrimental to the quality of articles in this topic area.

Another excellent source which would be prohibited by this restriction: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. For example, info here. These are also NOT "peer-reviewed" publications. And it's also something we use a lot.

I'm gonna be frank here - the ArbCom simply does not have the expertise or the knowledge to be able to decide what kind of sources are or are not appropriate in this topic. That would require at least amateurish familiarity with the literature in this area. Just so you know what the "industry standards" are. But I don't think anyone on the committee has that. This is precisely why generally the Committee is NOT suppose to decide on content matters. And this restriction is like someone who knows about, say, Classical music, deciding that rock bands are not allowed to play guitars because that's not part of the music they're familiar with.

The restriction would do much much more bad than good, especially considering that the overwhelming volume of disputes is not actually about the RELIABILITY of sources, but the alleged MISREPRESENTATION of what's in sources everyone agrees are reliable.

You need to either broaden this or drop it. Otherwise it'll be "Wikipedia Bans Yad Vashem and the US Holocaust Museum as a source!!!".

I suggest you guys refer this to the community and instruct someone to start a dedicated WP:RfC on the issue.

(Someone may be tempted to argue that in those cases, like YV and USHM, we can make an exception, but if you have to start making exceptions as soon as your blanket policy is written, then it's clearly a bad policy)

 Volunteer Marek  18:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * VM, I apologize for the lateness of this reply. I've reviewed your concerns here and I think there's merit to that - I've added wording to the remedy for "articles published by reputable institutions" which I believe should cover institutions such as the USHMM and Yad Vashem. I've pinged the other voting arbs for review. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that improves it. I do however think that the PD overall is misguided - like I said, imposing this kind of restriction assumes topic specific knowledge on the part of the ArbCom that it simply doesn't possess (nothing wrong with that, I don't know anything about lots of things). As another example, take an article by prominent Yale historian Timothy Snyder in the New York Review of Books like this one. It's a great source, obviously reliable, but technically speaking, it's not a "peer reviewed journal" so we wouldn't be able to use it. More generally, peer reviewed articles are often super-focused on very narrow topics due to specialization in academic and scholarship (like for example about a particular county or even a village) and since we're writing an encyclopedia not a journal article, we often find ourselves in need of more generalist sources, such as a magazine article by a prominent historian like Snyder. I would really leave this one to the community.  Volunteer Marek   03:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Response to MLJ
- I guess I'm just not clear on how fabricating a quote and using anti-semitic sources shows that someone has "high standards for pretty much everything". Maybe our notion of what "high standards" are different?

Also, no, I don't "feel misunderstood". I "feel" attacked, insulted, smeared and lied about. Because when someone falsely and yes, viciously, accuses you of something like Holocaust denial or "advocating violence against Jews", and they do that just to win a stupid Wikipedia argument that is exactly the "feelings" a normal person should experience. But again, perhaps we have different "standards". Or maybe you simply don't get it because weren't the subject of such smears yourself.  Volunteer Marek  17:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

there is a qualitative and substantial difference between the accusation "you are a bad Wikipedia editor" and "you are guilty of Holocaust denial". For one thing, some countries have laws against the latter, but no countries have laws about the former. For a good reason too.  Volunteer Marek  19:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Response to others
. The incivility and inflammatory rhetoric evidence is lopsided. The ABF is completely lopsided. The Hounding is 100% on one side. I'm sorry, I don't know what diffs you're reading but your entire statement is false and contradicts the facts. Making false accusations of "Holocaust denial", just to gain an upper hand in a Wikipedia disagreement is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more uncivil and bad faithed and plain insulting, than any, well, natural human response to such odious accusations. It's also extremely disrespectful to the memory of Holocaust victims. And out of 157 articles that we edited together, I edited 115 of them first. There's just 10 where the situation was reversed. So yes, it's "lopsided" - just not the way you claim. Fabricating quotes and falsifying statements to smear a BLP subject... that's also "one sided". And guess what, that wasn't me. Using anti-semitic sources, while demanding that other editors use only "highest quality academic sources"? Yeah that's also "one sided". And that wasn't me either. Making ethnically charged comments? Nope not me either. Inserting information which is actually contradicted by a source but pretending otherwise and "fake-sourcing" it by including a false inline citation. That one wasn't me either.

ALL of these things are behaviors that usually result in an indefinite ban. A topic ban is a slap on a wrist by comparison.  Volunteer Marek  21:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

- can you show me where "experienced editors, even administrators" referred to a country that has a higher level of freedom of press than Israel and only slightly less than US (according to sources provided by Icewhiz) as "like North Korea or Iran"? That's just so far out there in terms of reasonable views that it certainly looks like inflammatory provocation. Can you show me where "experienced editors, even administrators" have asserted that in some democratic, highly developed country it is "illegal to edit Wikipedia on the topic"? Again, the absurdity of the claim speaks for itself. Do "experienced editors, even administrators" constantly evaluate the reliability of sources based on the ethnicity of the author? No? Then that too is inflammatory and derogatory. What you got here is not some "scrutinizing sources" but something quite different ... and kind of messed up.  Volunteer Marek  20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Icewhiz
In regards to VM's comments above: Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The content is question is on placing Polish Jews in ghettos in 1266 (applying a prior (1215) Vatican council decision in Poland) - the source is on Poland: "It is not known how many Jew had established residence in Poland in the thirteenth century. That there were enough of them (it wouldn't have taken many) in the old Polish diocese, that of Gnizeno (Gnesen), to worry the Church fathers is evident from the following clause in canonical law as imposed by the Church Council of Breslau in 1266.... VM and MyMoloboaccount are seriously arguing to exclude placing Polish Jews in separate ghettos - in Poland - from racism in Poland.
 * 2) RM discussion on title of The Holocaust in Poland. VM circumventing consensus for title in links to that article (+violating MOS:SECTIONSTYLE(point-2) for section headers (sub-header under header containing "Poland" or article containing "Poland")): diff, diff (note edit summary: "simpler is not always better if it's less informative. RfC about naming of a particular article irrelevant"), diff, diff. This action (changing links, including see-also links, to correspond to title rejected by RM) by VM would've been actionable by itself had this ARBCOM not been open.
 * 3) In regards to the POV-pushing involved in circumventing the RM decision (+MOS:SECTIONSTYLE) - I refer to Dr. Waitman W. Beorn (Holocaust historian at The University of Virginia) -  - who explains the Polish push to use clunky terms such as "German Nazi-occupied Poland" as caused by "current trends in conservative Polish nationalism. In order to highlight what right wing Poles see as unrecognized Polish suffering (3 million non-Jewish Poles were murdered by the Nazis), it is important to minimize other suffering". Beorn also refers to this as a "naming crusade", and provides ample examples of Polish nationalist discourse in this context.
 * In regards to the tirade above - "Icewhiz's tactics is to try and label..." - I was quoting Dr. Waitman W. Beorn (Holocaust historian at The University of Virginia) who wrote on this topic. It is unfortunate VM disagrees with Dr. Beorn. Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Temporary interaction ban
- the hounding, harrassment, bullying, and name calling has been entirely one sided here. The sole place I have made comments on Volunteer Marek have been pages related to this case page - and these have been politely framed. I want to point out to ARBCOM that VM's issues extend well past Polish Jews (whom VM stated, here in ARBCOM, should not be labelled by Wikipedia as Polish in Wikipedia's lead) - but also to Islamophobia in Poland and LGBT-free zone where his disruption and arguing against mainstream high quality sources is clearly WP:NOTTHERE (beyond "just" hounding and bullying). That ARBCOM sees fit to consider sanctioning the victim of a relentless hounding campaign (which continued during these proceedidngs) speaks volumes. That diff from 15 August - which included the dergatory and racial based "anti-Polish":"For the advocates of the national-Catholic outlook the concept of anti-Polonism is much clearer than that of antisemitism. It has been present in the Polish public discourse since the late 1960s. It has even earned a definition: “external or internal actions aimed at the destruction of the Polish state and nation, hostility towards Poland and Poles, use of lies and insinuations calculated to blacken the image of the nation”. In the popular usage the anti-Polonism is limited almost exclusively to the alleged ‘anti-Polish machinations’ on the part of Jews." To further frame the context - "anti-Polish" was the label applied to Polish Jews in 1968 as the Polish government expelled almost every remaining Jew in Poland (some 100,000):"'Zionists to Zion,' people yelled at party conventions, the aim being to send the country's Jews — regarded as anti-Polish — to Israel." That this threatening language that does not result in an immediate site ban speaks volumes to the health of this community in responding to highly toxic behavior.Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Response to inaccuracies in FoF
- a response to the points below would be appreciated. Thank you. Icewhiz (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric
Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  - Polophile is used by mainstream sources - book, macleans - to refer to pro-Polish writers. it is not "ethnically derogatory" - it is the same as Francophile or Anglophile (which I suggest someone put up for AfD or massively refactor as "ethnically derogatory" should ARBCOM rule "Polophile" is "ethnically derogatory")!
 * 2)  - Polocaust is not an "ethnically derogatory comment". It is used by the Polish government -, and is used in mainstream sources - e.g. London Review of Books - . Polocaust is a contraction of "Polish Holocaust" - a notion advanced by some in Poland.
 * 3)  - Multiple reliable sources have seen to Polish Holocaust law as relevant to Polish media. My comparison to North Korea was unneeded hyperbole.
 * 4)  - I apologize for this comment in 2017, and my opinion of Polish Wikipedia has changed 180 degrees and is quite positive after I learned more. However the Polish Holocaust law is applicable to Polish Wikipedia editors (as Wikipedia does not fall under an exception, law applied worldwide).

BLP violations
Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Added. Icewhiz (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  - mostly falls under WP:ABOUTSELF (3 out of 4 sources are copies of an op-ed by the subject (in various not so mainstream outlets where this op-ed circulated pretty widely in early 2018) - WP:ABOUTSELF. The fourth, which shouldn't have been used, has extensive quotations of the op-ed and commentary - which is inappropriate given the nature of the source). I did not revert this content after a challenge, and after a different editor reverted this back in + issues on one of the sources were raised for the first time at AE - I removed the misused source.  I also took criticism to heart and ceased using op-eds by BLP subjects (in particular when published in such fora) for BLP pages following the criticism in mid-2018.
 * 2)  - Shouldn't have placed the category (mainly due to the distortion vs. denial distinction made by sources - I will note we do not have a distortion category), and did not contest its removal. However, Kurek's notability arises mainly from widespread coverage on Holocaust distortion and her writing and speeches (in English and mainstream Polish sources).
 * 3)  - Norman Davies tenure at Standford was rejected in conjunction with his writing on Jewish-Polish issues. This is not speculation - Davies said so himself (filing a protracted lawsuit on this basis), and this has had major coverage. See New York Times - SCHOLAR SAYS HIS VIEWS ON JEWS COST HIM A POST AT STANFORD, or this book. Nor is this just an item of the distant past - e.g. Lunch with the FT: Norman Davies, 2012 in the Financial Times labels this as "the most controversial episode of his academic career". I should've placed one of these sources next to my assertion - however this is easily sourced.
 * 4)  - for starters Bronisław Wildstein has filled many roles (e.g. dissident, journalist), but he is not a scholar. Wildstein is primarily known for the Wildstein list controversy - the publication of over a hundred thousand names connected by archives to the communists. The uproar, at the time, led to Wildstein being fired from Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) - see Guardian in English. At least in English this  controversy is his primary claim to notability. Wildstein's words on tokfm-radio were actually being discussed, DUEness, for inclusion on a BLP article - Jan Grabowski (historian) - a Canadian scholar, who is widely covered by mainstream media and academia.
 * 5) Ewa Kurek -, - I apologize that when adding secondary, peer-reviewed, academic sources (not reviews) - that I followed the sources closely and did not tone down the language present in the source or attributed the particular phrase to the author of the source (as I partially did elsewhere - e.g. "implies" should've have had an "according to Michlic" as the previous sentence does. In "Outlandish" - the source in question was a secondary academic source, published by Routledge in 2011 some five years after the 2006 book (and not a "response in Whatever newspaper") - stating "outlandish" as fact. The Routledge book, beyond citing Kurek's book, also cited Gazeta Wyborcza for further reading, but it would've been incorrect to attribute the wording in the academic source to the newspaper as the source didn't do so - it should've been attributed to the Weinbaum in Routledge (The 2006 Gazeta Wyborcza piece (which is not a response nor oped- it is a full feature published by Wyborcza with their own reporters (+credited outside professional historical help)) is also quite critical - but it uses other language).

Insinuations of Holocaust denial
My opening preamble to ARBCOM, in the context of arbitration, was on the state of content on Wikipedia, in relation to currents outside of Wikipedia on Holocaust distortion/denial. I followed up by specific examples present in Wikipedia mainspace for years. Volunteer Marek appeared some four paragraphs down. I stand behind my assertion that Holocaust distortion content is present - and is even pervasive on Wikipedia.

In addition to distortions listed in the case (6 separate examples in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence) - during this long case I found a conspiracy theory on an extra death camp (allegedly for ethnic Poles, death toll of 200,000 and even 400,000 per one version) present in main space for some 15 years - in 6 different articles - including top-tier articles such as Extermination Camp or German camps in occupied Poland during World War II). See User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory. I also sent to the ARBCOM mailing list (and I was not looking for this - I was working on removing/refactoring this content to RSes) - Poeticbent inserting information on KL Warschau not supported by the citation he used (in response to a citation-needed challenge), nor by any mainstream source in - diff).

Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation should be deeply concerned at this platform hosting widespread Holocaust distortion.Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Struck
The evidence in - is wide ranging - and beyond an error. In Stawiski Poeticbent actively prevented removal more than three times of content not supported by citations - I refer to AE on this content and to this piece by Dr. Whitcup who describes multiple attempts to correct the entry (the editor doing the reverting, as evident in article history, was Poeticbent).

Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Struck - as not the place to rerun evidence.Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Points in evidence that were omitted
Posted in accordance with note. The proposed decision draft (as of 8 September 2019), has overlooked the following points - all present in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - a response to the points below would be appreciated. Also given that you - diff - agreed that "Kurek's views are outlandish and abhorrent - I would request your response to editors advancing self-published works (in which said views are expressed as facts) by Ewa Kurek as a source for Jewish/Holocaust history on Wikipedia - this is present in evidence - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence (diff). As well as an editor contrasting mainstream sources (and, I'd note, secondary academic sources with similar coverage and mainstream Polish media (e.g. Gazeta Wyborcza). The book itself being a dissertation rejected by a Polish university - so not only self-published, but self-published after rejection + poorly received) with far-right Polish media labeling mainstream North American scholars with the ethnically derogatory "anti-Polish" -  22 May 2019 diff (also in evidence). The promotion of Ewa Kurek as a source on Wikipedia has been going on for over a year - e.g. RSN discussion in May 2018. Given Piotrus's involvement in a number of discussions of Kurek as well as editing the Ewa Kurek article itself - Piotrus should've been abundantly aware of RS coverage on the nature of the self-published source he introduced.Icewhiz (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP
Per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence, the following points on BLP vs. Volunteer Marek are in evidence and not in the PD: Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) BLP talk attack -  ("rant is stuffed so full of nonsense and is barely coherent, so it's pretty much a non-RS"),  ("so she wrote basically a long rant about it, stuffed full of inaccuracies, falsehoods, hyperbolic and exaggerated language, failed attempts at irony and faux outrage. And that's the parts that are coherent"). Contrast WP:RSes - such as the Holocaust Studies journal or English-language news media -  NE Public Radio or Tablet.
 * 2) BLP talk -,  - saying BLP author of peer reviewed journal article is "absurd" and "utilizes ridiculous and laughable conspiracy theories". (the information itself on the The Institute of World Politics is corroborated by several other 3rd party sources (e.g. Newsweek or coverage on postgraduate intelligence studies) - as well as IWP itself (all over their website. Their main page -  - currently features a CIA information session on 10 September, Employers of IWP Alumni - lists CIA and DIA at the top).
 * 3) BLP  -  - inserting the Polish League Against Defamation (right-wing nationalist organization -   ) as a source to a BLP. includes content such as alleging that Grabowski used "vivid and exaggerated statements to create propagandistic constructions, rather than to provide an honest picture" - language not present in secondary coverage, serious accusation, and the subject of a libel lawsuit - source.
 * 4) BLP -  - violation of WP:BLPSPS - highly inappropriate self-published source with serious accusations.

far-right POV
Per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence the following are in evidence and not in the PD: Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)    - removing "Polish" from Polish Jews. In ARBCOM -  - openly advocating: "The difference between me and Icewhiz here is that while he objects to stating that a person was Jewish, he is insisting that we include that a person was Polish in the lede (this in the case of people who were both Polish and Jewish). I am saying, leave both out.". Counter to MOS:ETHNICITY.
 * 2)  - VM inserting content to Wikipedia - referring to a practicing Catholic as Jewish - in WikiVoice, without even mentioning his conversion.
 * 3) Not recognizing the Polish government in 1945-1989 (which happened to be Communist) - , . Commie marking (multiple times in one sentence) - high ranking communist soldier -
 * 4) Referring to WP:RSes on Polish antisemitism as "Pole bashing" -  or "COATRACK ... disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV" -.
 * 5) Also - this RSN discussion (in evidence) - where we have a small group of editors genuinely arguing for the use of this dubious source - which should raise very strong alarm bells at ARBCOM.

Content failing verification
Per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence and Volunteer Marek's actions in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence are in evidence and not in the PD: Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  - Inserting "both Poles and Jews were classified as subhuman and targeted for extermination" - far from mainstream historiography. Cited source - a municipal website - does not contain this falsehood. Note content was challenged - diff - on WP:V failure of this segment.
 * 2)  - not in source (notes plan's rejection), while removing anti-Jewish pogroms as a motivation (cited to Syracuse University Press book) . Source is in English - should be easy to check.
 * 3) Volunteer Marek  - stating that Jews of Radziłów sent "Polish families to exile" - as a prelude to their mass murder in a pogrom carried out by Poles. The source, as indicated by VM himself, is on a different place entirely. English source: right here on page 63 (statement is without a location, and describes why "nationalistic elements among the majority peoples" (throughout Western USSR) labelled the Soviet administration as a "Jewish regime"). Note coverage on the event isn't lacking (e.g. Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 (published by Indiana University Press & USHMM) has a 2 page entry on the event - nothing similar on "Jewish militiamen").
 * 4)  - not in citation. personal attack on challenge.
 * 5)  - The source does not say this practice is "very limited" (It actually notes the opposite. In Polish - but is cited/summarized in English (here). The sentence is also absurd by itself - an item held by 19% of Poles (per survey) is not "very limited")
 * 6)  - inserting content that does not appear in cited source. And ... admitting he didn't actually check the Kopciowski source. One of the two Kopciowski refs are in English - I can send it via e-mail. Neither Kopciowski doesn't contain "thousands" - it is a very local study. (it is also WP:CHERRYPICKED to the extreme - the 29 page Anti-Jewish Incidents in the Lublin Region in the Early Years after World War II - tallies dozens of anti-Jewish incidents)
 * 7)  - misrepresentation + WP:CHERRYPICKING to the extreme of a reputable young scholar - twisting his writing (while naming him on-Wiki!). You don't need to read the Polish - Krzyzanowski - cites his own work in a 2018 English journal paper - with very different conclusions.

I care about content
- Maybe presenting evidence against an editor gone for a year was a waste of time (proceedings so far seem to strongly indicate this). But content is what I care about. As someone who understands this topic, I was shocked to uncover (in a gradual and haphazard fashion - Stawiski I fixed on march 2018, and Belzec in June 2019, - all the rest are spread out in between) the 6 examples in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence (and there are several less egregious examples) - I thought - evidently wrongly - these would be obvious on the face of things - present in Wikipedia mainspace for years (and some (e.g. Stawiski - actively defended vs. challenges by novices/IPs). I was even more shocked by the later (August) chance find of User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is used in schools - it's the go-to resource when school kids write a school report (well - B/C/D/F grade students who copy/paraphrase the Wikipedia article). These shouldn't have been present on Wikipedia. I thought ARBCOM would look at content - and specifically content that fails verification (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence) or uses very poor sources for a sensitive topic (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence). Content is what Wikipedia is about end of the day. Name calling or losing tempers - that's all on the backstage of talk pages and edit summaries (and if it is just name calling - without hampering productive work - I often just ignore it). It seems this case is basically being reduced to "two editors had a fight, lets separate/punish them" - that won't improve content quality.

Sourcing expectations
(I will note that at least Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision would be a step forward - most historical subjects (as opposed to present-day debates over historical subjects) - that pass WP:GNG have copious sources in English academic sources). Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

,, , - this modification is ill advised since educational material on the websites of reputable institutions (e.g. USHMM) are often of a very low quality (often changing - without a stable publication date/form, and wouldn't be used as a citation in a serious context), and furthermore determining what is a reputable institution is complex - and possible much too complex for WP:AE. Many Eastern European institutions have an appalling reputation in this regard - perhaps the best known example is the Lithuanian Genocide Centre (which is relevant to Poland - as they share a border, and modern Lithuania contains part of pre-WWII Poland (Wilno/Vilnius)) - which is known for promoting the double genocide myth and has a reputation of glorifying/whitewashing the Lithuanian Nazi collaborators (who tend also be anti-Soviet fighters) - who - in Lithuania (unlike Poland) - actually carried out the bulk of the Lithuanian Holocaust. (See this for easy reading on the subject. Memory Politics in Lithuania have been the subject of academic study). The same is true of some state run museums - some of which have a similar record and poor reputation.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If an institution has a poor reputation, it isn't a reputable institution and therefore material published by it cannot be used under the new sourcing rule. That's the idea. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by TonyBallioni
More of a procedural thing than anything,, but I think mentioned on the Fram case that he was opposed to time limited bans. He was speaking of site bans there, but I think the same logic applies to topic bans. Given how deeply seated these topics are emotionally for people, I personally doubt in a year they will suddenly not feel the same way and act the same way. It might make more sense to change it to "They may appeal after a year" or something like that, so that there has to be a discussion before the ban lapses.Anyway, that assumes either passes, but worth raising as there has been a trend both at AN, AE, and to some extent ArbCom itself away from limited sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Levivich

 * FOF 4 and FOF 5 have combined statements about both IW and VM. They should be split; arbs shouldn't forced to choose between supporting both or neither.
 * FOF 4 "incivility and inflammatory rhetoric" -
 * It is not an "unnecessary inflammatory comment" to compare media suppression in one country (here, Poland) with media suppression in very-repressive countries (North Korea, Iran). How are we supposed to discuss sources if we can't discuss press freedoms? Nobody makes this case when we're talking about, for example, Wikipedia being shut off in Turkey, or restricted in China, or Venezuela, where comparisons to NK and Iran are made all the time. Why is it "inflammatory" and "unnecessary" when it's Poland? Because it's a European country, it can't be repressive like North Korea?
 * IW is right that "Polocaust" is not derogatory. The Polish Deputy Culture Minister called for creating a "Polokaust Museum". Same with "polophile", which is no different than sinophile, anglophile, francophile, etc. Here it is in a journal:
 * FOF 5 "assuming bad faith" – All of the examples from these case pages should be removed, for both parties. This will have a chilling effect on the bringing of evidence.
 * FOF 9 "insinuations of holocaust denial"
 * Actually, IW wrote "Holocaust denial/distortion". "Holocaust denial" doesn't just mean denying that the Holocaust ever happened. Holocaust revisionism, and Holocaust minimization, are also forms of Holocaust denial. So what do you call it when an editor changes the order of victims in an article from "Jews, Roma, Africans, Poles" to "Poles, Jews, Roma, Africans"? That's Holocaust denial.
 * If we are going to have FOFs about what people wrote on the case request page, then why aren't any of these statements by VM in the FOFs?
 * ...to push his fucked up POV of "Poles are a bunch of anti semites" which has been the POV he's been engaged in pushing for the past two years... Icewhiz's POV however goes far beyond that and displays some weird obsession with shitting on Poland
 * ...1) Fuck. You. and 2) have the fucking guts to say it outright rather than insinuating it like a sleazy weasel...horribly and utterly sleazy, dishonest and scummy... this fucking asshole needs to be banned. Now.
 * ...stop lying about me you fucking sleazeball.
 * FOF 10 "BLP violations"
 * Ewa Kurek once wrote that Jews "had fun in the ghettos". It is not a BLP violation to add her to Category:Holocaust deniers. I mean, if you don't think that's Holocaust denial, I don't know what to tell you. At most, you might say it's a bona-fide content dispute. But it's definitely not a BLP violation to take one side of that content dispute. Making "negative edits to BLPs" is not a violation of our policies, of course, so long as it's well sourced. We have an entire section in that article discussing other scholars discussing Ewa Kurek's Holocaust denials and revisionism.
 * "posting negative claims or speculations about living scholars" – how do we do our jobs as editors if we can't discuss the reputability of sources? There are no "speculations" in the diffs provided. It's a discussion of a source, referencing other sources discussing that source. With links and diffs.
 * So many diffs are from 2018 and so few are from, like, the last few months. Why no mention of these incidents that happened during the case here, here and here? A topic ban should be based on current, ongoing disruption, not stuff from a year or two ago.
 * Remedy 2: The IBAN should be one way VM vs. IW. VM hounds IW; there's no evidence of the reverse. VM is uncivil towards IW, there's no evidence of the reverse (and IW's claims that VM isn't following NPOV are not PAs). VM acts like it's his job to police IW's contribs (see links in previous bullet).
 * Remedy 3 and 4, I think are both unnecessary and will be ineffective (as there are many other editors who will continue in IW and VM's places). Instead, I think it should be replaced with strong and specifically-worded admonitions–the kind that actually advise the parties specifically on how to do better in the future–combined with structural remedies such as Remedy 5. – Levivich 22:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right that I'm basically arguing semantics with denial v. distortion. "Polocaust", though, really isn't an inflammatory term IMO; it's the term used by the Polish government itself, and seems to be used by others to describe the concept: In that diff, IW is arguing that an author was not reliable because he's "advancing polocaust, which is quite fringy". I don't see how that's inflammatory when "Polocaust" is what it's called by the government, professors, the media, etc., and the author in question did write a book called "Poland's Holocaust". Whether Polocaust is or isn't "fringy", and whether this author is or isn't an RS, I don't know, but I don't think it's inflammatory to use the term Polocaust or suggest that it may be fringe (there's at least some support out there for that, but I haven't extensively researched the issue myself). – Levivich 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal: "Poland’s government...argues that the murder of Poles—about 3 million non-Jewish Poles died during the war—constitutes a Polocaust, a term used by its Ministry of Culture, which is seeking to build a museum educating foreigners about the suffering of Poles during the war."
 * The "liberal" Gazeta Wyborcza (Gtrans): "Professor Wojciech Burszta: Polocaust reminds that Poles are not worse than Jews". pl:Wojciech Burszta is a cultural anthropology professor at SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, "one of the largest private universities in Poland".
 * Polish blog pl:Salon24.pl ran an opinion piece (Gtrans): "Antipolonism and Polocaust... Since the crime against European Jews is the Holocaust, the crime against 6 million Polish citizens (including 3 million ethnic Poles) committed by Nazi Germany and the communist USSR is Polocaust. The author of the concept of Polocaust is Marek Kochan. It is worth using this term and constantly repeating what it means. In the era of online media, it may be easier to spread the term than anyone thinks. And the memory of the Polocaust is a tribute to millions of murdered or exterminated compatriots... Antipolonism and Polocaust are real phenomena. It's time to name them. Words are a very strong tool in this case defending the history of the country and the memory of murdered people." (Marek Kochan wrote a piece in Rzeczpospolita advocating for a Polocaust Museum.)
 * pl:Pikio.pl (Gtrans): "What is Polokaust? ... Who is Marek Kochan?"

I'll note IW wrote above that he shouldn't have added Ewa Kurek to that category and didn't contest it, but there's at least enough Israeli media sources IMO to call it a good-faith content issue and not a BLP violation: Haaretz calls her a "revisionist" and we don't have a Category:Holocaust revisionists, and I'm probably more of a hardliner that "revisionism is denial' perhaps than IW, so I can see why he wouldn't contest it, but not a bad-faith BLP violation. Revisionism v. denial is "shades of gray". – Levivich 03:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Haaretz ("the longest running newspaper currently in print in Israel"): "The Jedwabne petition, which is being circulated by Ewa Kurek, a far-right historian from Lublin, received coverage in Polish media amid other articles about revisionist tendencies on Jedwabne, including at the Institute of National Remembrance"
 * Arutz Sheva ("an Israeli media network identifying with Religious Zionism"): "...the known Polish vocal anti-Semite Ewa Kurek who actively promotes the concept that ghettos during the war ‘were set up by Jews on Polish territories as a blue-print for the future Jewish state structures’."
 * Tablet (magazine) :
 * "What is particularly alarming," Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal Center and a former chair of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial said of Kurek’s U.S. speeches, "is the fact that professional anti-Semites and Holocaust distorters are finding audiences and mining U.S. communities for support."
 * Silberklang had a similarly unsparing verdict on Kurek’s work. "She doesn’t deny that Nazi Germany wanted to kill the Jews and that Jews were killed. She’s not a Holocaust denier in that sense," he said. "But she distorts things so radically and so egregiously that she’s basically in the realm of Holocaust denial, or at least extreme distortion."
 * "She is maybe the only legitimate Holocaust scholar to have become an alleged Holocaust revisionist or distorter during a later phase of her career."

Hi, could you expand on the two diffs you added to FOF 10 and what specifically about them is inappropriate editorializing in Wikivoice? The second diff appears to have nothing in wikivoice at all, everything is attributed and cited to Michlic. In the first diff, the first sentence is the only sentence in wikivoice (right?), and I assume it's the word "outlandish" that is inappropriate editorializing. This word is used in the source cited (a book published by Routledge, p. 38, "...Ewa Kurek, who advanced an outlandish interpretation..."). Is it the failure to attribute that makes this sanctionable editorializing in wikivoice? Also, generally speaking, the theory that Jews built the ghettos themselves in collaboration with the Nazis, "had fun" there, and that it was their first experience with self-governance in 2,000 years... we can't say that's "outlandish" in Wikivoice? Given the sourcing that was already in the article at the time this edit was made (AP via Boston Globe "Ewa Kurek, has made claims that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II", Yad Vashem historian quoted "Kurek is using the Holocaust and using Jewish history and Polish history in order to spread hate"; in the same link Simon Wiesenthal Center Director of Govt Affairs described her as a "professional anti-Semite" and "Holocaust distorter". Comparing our treatment of this fringe view, with our treatment of anti-vaxers or flat-earthers, etc., would you call it a BLP violation if an editor wrote that a flat-earther's claim that the earth was flat was "outlandish", in wikivoice?

Similarly, could the arbs expand on which of the sources in the first FOF 10 diff are inappropriate sources? Editors will want to avoid them in the future. Thank you. – Levivich 01:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, it's the failure to specifically attribute "outlandish" as an opinion coming from a quoted critic that makes it unencyclopedic. Kurek's views are outlandish and abhorrent, but we must present that in an encyclopedic way to avoid BLP and NPOV issues. If the paragraph had been worded "So-and-so described this position as 'outlandish' in a response in Whatever newspaper" then that wouldn't have been editorializing. Similarly, in the second diff, I have an issue with the sentence that starts "In the chapter, Kurek implies" - the very definition of an implication is that it isn't stated outright. Although the whole paragraph is sourced to Michlic, that particular sentence is written as though it were an objective fact, not a description of an opinion about an implication. If we want to assert that Kurek's implying something, we need to specify what we're basing that on, at the very least. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PMC (especially for the super-quick response!). – Levivich 01:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with PMC's interpretation, I am still grateful for her response. I would be even more grateful if she (and AGK before her) weren't the only arbitrators to engage with editors in this case. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount
Original:

Revised by MyMoloboaccount:


 * This was from the lead of Racism in Poland on Aug 5. François Robere reverted and per WP:BRD, brought this up for discussion on Aug 5 at Talk:Racism in Poland. VM re-inserted this on Aug 11 (and cleared an {undue} tag, and made other changes), twice, then MyMolobo re-inserted it again on Aug 12 and again on Aug 14. Right now, a different version of this sentence has thirteen citations, and is the subject of a thread at WP:NPOV (I guess we went from 14 to 13, so that's some progress?).
 * Up above, I pointed to where VM had changed the section order on this article from "Jews, Roma, Sub-Saharan Africans, Ethnic Poles" to "Ethnic Poles, Jews, Roma, Sub-Saharan Africans". MyMolobo did the same thing, two days ago, after I posted here (compare the TOC before and after MyMolob's edit). MyMolobo also did this back in May, with the edit summary "previous was better:Poles,Jews, Romani and others were genocided by Nazis". And again in August with the edit summary "rv strange shifting of the largest group experiencing racism to very bottom ...". Arguing that the primary victims of racism in Poland are ethnic Poles is like arguing that the primary victims of racism in the US are whites.
 * Back in June, MyMolobo added text equating Jewish and Polish persecution during the Holocaust (diff) by adding, "... and racist based genocide attempt by Nazi Germany in 20th century where both Poles and Jews were classified as subhuman by German state and were to be enslaved and exterminated", which is not an accurate portrayal of the Holocaust.
 * In May, same article, removed text about racism in Poland against Polish Jews before WWII (diff). The edit summary said "remove extreme fringe claim as per discussion", but if you look at the discussion, there is no consensus for removal (actually, the opposite: two editors in favor of using the source, none agreeing with MyMolobo).
 * This stuff going on in August was raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Also, see the Evidence presented by François Robere on the Evidence case page.
 * Showing IMO a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, MyMolobo, just a couple days ago, filed an AE report against IW for IW's posts here, as a purported violation of the temporary IBAN between IW and VM (no action taken), which should be added to the table at FOF #3.


 * I agree with what Sashi wrote below about Xx236. FR's evidence has diffs of PAs, battleground, etc., and see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland, for example. I hope it will be addressed in the PD.
 * I also agree with others' comments about FOF 14 "Events since the close in the workshop", which contains an incomplete retelling of IW's block (about which I've already written much at AE and IW's talk page), but does not include any of this other stuff, above, that also happened since close in the workshop.
 * The PD should address this stuff; TBANing VM and IW, by itself, will do nothing, as can be seen by the ongoing disruption by others in August and September. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A tale of two cases
Arbcom has two cases: one is simple and direct, involving a single editor and a resolution that nearly everyone agrees upon (overturn the office action); the other is complicated and nuanced, involving multiple editors and the Holocaust, with no easy solution.

Number of edits by all arbitrators combined to the Fram proposed decision page after the PD was posted: 190

Number of edits by all arbitrators combined to the Poland proposed decision page after the PD was posted: 3. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Remedy 5: Sourcing expectations
Regarding ... and/or articles published by reputable institutions.: I think a source restriction for the topic area is a generally good idea, but not a half-baked, half-assed one that isn't based on a thorough examination of the sources actually being used in the topic area.
 * 1) "Articles"? What about books, films, etc. etc.?
 * 2) Just because it's a reputable institution doesn't mean it's a reliable source. There is plenty of stuff that's incorrect that's published by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), and even Yad Vashem publishes some stuff that either isn't reliable or isn't the best available source. For example, USHMM publishes content from contributors on its website. This content isn't peer-reviewed, and the editorial controls are unknown. Sometimes it's just factually wrong. Not a big deal, the point is scholarly vs. non-scholarly, and "reputable institutions" publish a mixture of scholarly and non-scholarly work.
 * 3) "Reputable institutions" should never be a "third prong" after "peer-reviewed scholarly journals" and "academically focused books by reputable publishers" (btw, why just books? what about magazines? pamphlets? articles? etc.). For example, the source restriction, as currently written, would allow me to use: (1) a peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal, (2) a high school textbook (not a good source, but "academically focused...by reputable publishers"), and (3) user-submitted content on USHMM's website. That makes no sense.
 * 4) Source restrictions should probably be workshopped before they're instituted, especially in a controversial topic area, such as one involving the Holocaust
 * 5) Source restrictions should only be put in place after a source review . Has Arbcom examined, one by one, the sources put forward during this case, to determine which are reliable and which are unreliable, before coming up with a new "rule"?
 * 6) How does it make sense to TBAN an editor but then take their suggestion for a source restriction?
 * 7) This will create endless discussions about whether or not an institution is "reputable", rather than whether or not a specific source is "reliable" (which involves much more than the reputability of the publisher)

I'm starting to think maybe it's better if Arbcom just "no-billed" this. Make no decision at all, and kick it back to the community. And take the PIA4 case off the docket, too. If the arbitrators aren't "into" this – that is, if it doesn't have their attention and engagement – there is no point in their rendering a decision. It will only make things worse than they were before. It doesn't help to create a source restriction that you know will bite you in the ass later, just because it might work. We don't need arbcom to throw spaghetti against the wall and see if it sticks. As I said at the very outset of this case, all that's needed is for a group of editors who are interested in doing so to carefully work through these issues. Unfortunately that isn't what's happened here. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by SashiRolls
I have watched this case from afar and my feeling about it has changed significantly over time, particularly after looking more carefully into a couple of the articles under contention and successfully editing a couple of those pages. Two of the proposed findings of fact are problematic. As both Icewhiz and Levivich have said, I think it is stretching language-policing to the limit to characterize the words "Polocaust" and "polophile" as insulting, proscribed speech. Finding of Fact #4 should be split into two separate findings as Levivich suggests. Similarly, the citations Lev provides of VM showing no self-restraint should definitely be added to the FoF regarding VM's "inflammatory rhetoric". My initial sympathy for VM in this case was related to off-wiki events with which I have no reason to believe IW was connected (Streisand Effect of VM vociferating about being called a holocaust denier.)

I also concur with Levivich concerning the presentation of events since closure of the evidence phase  (FoF #14). Not only was the edit warring report glossed over (though El C specifically drew ArbCom's attention to it, leading to the temporary injunctions on this very page!), but the link to Icewhiz' naked block record (without mention of their AE appeal) is very misleading. bradv chose to block IW for a marginal offense, while looking the other way as VM pushed "Ethnic Poles" back to the top of the "Racism in Poland" entry (which he'd fought with IW about as recently as 11 Aug).

I can understand that IW has provoked reaction with their editing. My experience, for example, with the New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) page is a good example. The point about Polish nationalism is/was driven home with multiple repetitions and unnecessarily unpleasant / leading formulations. However, I think it is worth mentioning that I did not encounter any of the ownership behavior so common in AP2 when I tried to tone down the language. (In fact, I don't believe that I was reverted on either of the pages I edited which IW had principally authored.)

In summary, I don't want to get involved in this debate any more than to say that FoF #4 and FoF #14 should be modified: the first should be split into two separate findings and the latter should be completed to include a fuller picture of the post-workshop goings on. It is my opinion that there is some fault on both sides but that something needs to be done about an editor who regularly vents their spleen without any filter whatsoever. Again, I believe VM's comments need to be highlighted here so that it is clear what ArbCom will be condoning if they do not sanction this sort of speech:



Thank you for taking the time to read this. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 02:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * François Robere asked me what I thought about criticism of a "get a life" comment he made that was not directed at anyone in particular (the criticism came from 2 ArbCom case clerks). Well, François, I noticed you directed the clerks to some comments from Xx236 who, for some reason, was never named as a party in this case. I ran across this person quite a bit on and around the TP of the two pages I poked around on. Even if it's a bit late for evidence, here is a quick florilège of some wiXx236i-loving goodness the ArbCom clerks apparently didn't find worthy of note:


 * Talk space


 * 09:41 19 August (Talk:LGBT-free zone)
 * 09:08 19 August (Template:DYK nomination)
 * 07:27 7 August (& sqq.) (Islamophobia in Poland)
 * User space


 * 09:58 2 September (User talk:Icewhiz)
 * 09:52 2 September (User talk:Cwmhiraeth)

more on sources & methods
I really believe the triply templated Racism in Poland (Coatrack, POV, undue) could stand some attention, particularly the ref-stack of 14 quotes in the lede, which take up a full screen/page's worth of footnotes in the references section.

The talk page, too, is filled with love. When the question was raised of changing the name of the article to "Prejudice in Poland" or "Religious intolerance in Poland", one of my co-commenters here had this to say:


 * I think you are really obsessed. How about Nazi zombies in Poland? My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been over six weeks now, and if the ref-stack (added in the days after mvbw's suggestion) is the productive result of that comment, I'm not impressed. One reference to, say, the Khmelnytsky_Uprising, or to the Szlachta might deserve at least a tiny place in this bloated list concerning racism in Poland... unfortunately the source I've been reading to learn more is not in English, though it is peer-reviewed. (978-2-87673-555-2)

Meanwhile, I don't know if there are any GLAM projects planned with Gdansk's WWII musuem, but... , 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 14:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Piotrus
As I said before, i-bans and t-bans are not ideal, but frankly, I am not sure what would be better :( Few general comments:
 * about the scope of topic ban, it is IMHO a bit unclear if it extends to topics like Institute of National Remembrance or racism in Poland, just to mention two relatively recent articles the parties had some disagreements.
 * while I think it is correct to remove Poeticbent as a party, I still think it is a missed opportunity to invite him back (if with some words of caution/warning). In addition to handing out punishments, arbcom should also hand incentives for good behavior (since there is no other body on Wikipedia that can do so). Also, semi-related, I've noticed how some editors at recent AE appeal by IW have commented about 3-day block without a warning being too harsh; a fair point - yet I wonder where were those editors, or voices, when Poeticbent received a 6-month topic ban out of the blue for a single comment of debatable incivility? For him, it was an effectively 6-month ban. If one is going to argue about 3 days ban being too harsh, perhaps some perspective is needed... Again, I am only bringing this up as I think ArbCom has the power to correct this particular wrong and at least try, in addition to removing two active editors from this topic area, to bring another one back. In the end, we have to also consider who's going to be left to create content, after the dust settles - because if we create nuclear desert with everyone interested in this effectively blocked or scared off, is Wikipedia really going to be better of? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not really arbcom's institutional role to "invite people back" (and I doubt it would work on anyone, either). It's always better if someone who knew and worked with the departed editor well does the reaching out. Opabinia regalis (talk)
 * Several people did on his talk page. But since that was not enough, you'd think that a de facto 6 months out of the blue block should be reviewed and apologized for by 'someone in charge'. And around here that means the ArbCom... --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Just want to say that I fully endorse points 1-7 made by User:Levivich regarding issues with the source quality remedy. This needs much refinement. Ideally, interested editors would create something like WP:VG/RS or others in the Category:WikiProject lists of online reliable sources.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WBG
Largely agree with almost everything that said .... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If any arb wishes to reply, please reply to individual bullets.
 * Arbitration and settling content-disputes (WBG)
 * How does this fall under the purview of inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments? [FoF 4 :- Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric, IW's bullet]
 * I note that our arbitrators have no reply to multiple reliable sources (linked by Levivich and Icewhiz) using the term polocaust.


 * How does this fall under the purview of inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments? [FoF 4 :- Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric, IW's bullet]
 * There's even an article at Polonophile like Indophile, Francophile et al and some scholars do indeed take a distinct pro-Poland bias in these domains ....


 * What's inflammatory over here, other than a hyperbolic comparison to North Korea? [FoF 4 :- Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric, IW's bullet]
 * Do you dispute the existence of the law and its perceived chilling effects, despite being a bit ill-timed? I agree that the comparison to NK was non-optimal but the thrust of the argument was about state-censure.


 * How is this inappropriate speculation? [FoF 10 :- BLP violations]
 * Shall we stop scrutinizing the (un)reliability of scholars journalists unless and until they die and fall outside purview of BLP? Which part of Icewhiz's statement was factually incorrect?


 * How is this inappropriate speculation? [FoF 10 :- BLP violations]
 * Davies was rejected tenure at Stanford and after he filed an appeal, the appellate court ruled in 1986:-From what appears in the (voting) records, the basis of the decision against Davies was ..... the manner and substance of his academic interpretation of historical events occurring some 40 years earlier. Also, see this chapter.


 * What do you wish to see, in place of this? [FoF 10 :- BLP violations]
 * Every damn thing is attributed to Michlic, directly or indirectly. I have left a comment at User talk:PMC, pursuant to her response (above) to Levivich.


 * Icewhiz has made negative edits to BLPs is grossly poor phrasing. [FoF 10 :- BLP violations]
 * You can't create policy by fiat and adding negative stuff (what do you even mean by a negative edit? ; I am taking the closest possible interpretation) to BLPs are allowed. On the merits of the particular case, it was not a highly optimal addition (and I would not have effected it) but I can certainly argue for it, if I wish.


 * Moving away from the locus of highly questionable and/or plainly dubious FOFs on content-issues, I can't either see as to how Icewhiz can be deemed of accusing Marek of Holocaust denial/distortion. [FoF 9 :- Insinuations of Holocaust denial]
 * More or less, what AGK says.


 * Also, what's a non-deliberate hoax? [FoF 5 :- Assuming bad faith]
 * Hoaxes are by-definition deliberate. And, IW ought not have used hoax, as the terminology.


 * I now see that arbitrator PMC had responded above:- Kurek's views are outlandish and abhorrent, but we must present that in an encyclopedic way to avoid BLP and NPOV issues....If the paragraph had been worded:- "So-and-so described this position as 'outlandish' in a response in Whatever newspaper".... [FoF 10 :- BLP violations]
 * No, if his views are indeed outlandish and abhorrent by scholarly consensus (I guess you are stating so, since your own opinion is largely immaterial), we present that in a wiki-voice. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. I can recall several examples:- David Frawley, Subhash Kak, N.S. Rajaram, Koenraad Elst and countless others from the far-ethno-nationaist-right in S.Asian domains, (articles written by me, in near-entirety), who have been so outlandish/revisionist/negationist (despite occasional or erstwhile brilliance) in certain aspects that it's safe to use such epithets in wiki-voice. BLP is not a trump-card to mellow down criticism of fringe scholars, who are yet to die.
 * It's also sad that you can't distinguish between peer-reviewed scholarly works and newspaper coverage. There's an order of difference between the potentially justifiable usage of these two kinds of source, in these scenarios.


 * The Committee does not rule on content (from ARBPOL) for good reasons and the mess that you have constructed while choosing to adjudicate on a content-dispute, tells volumes about why some of you might try to edit one or two articles per year, now onward. At any case, you have already drafted a safety valve at FOF-12 (Challenges in evaluating evidence); expand its ambit and nuke your motions on content. I have zero confidence that you can tackle a content dispute. FWIW, the decisions on conduct-aspects seems to be okay-ish to me. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not looking at the conduct aspects of the FoF very closely (which led to my earlier okayish remark) *but* post Valeree's post, I am compelled to agree with her. The toxicity is largely one-sided. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf

 * Principle 3 (pre-existing disputes): I find the wording "However, Wikipedia does not permit disputed issues to be imported into its encyclopedia articles or to affect the pursuit of its purpose." to be a bit clumsy as it would seem to prohibit any coverage of real-world disputes, which is obviously not your intention. Possibly changing it to "does not permit disputes' to be imported" would be better.
 * Principle 4 (neutral point of view): I agree with the principle, but again the wording isn't optimal as there are times that there are biased/fringe/etc views that are notable and need to be covered, just not in significant detail. Unfortunately I'm not immediately able to propose something better.
 * FoF 14 (Events since the close of the workshop): It would be useful I think to state that the block of Icewhiz was for a breach of the iban, and they appealed this but that appeal was closed as moot after the block expired. seems to be the most useful link to accompany that.
 * Remedy 6 (Acknowledgment of delay):Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes

 * This subject area is already covered by EE discretionary sanctions. The immediate problem which led to this case was a highly complex complaint about VM brought by Icewhiz to WP:AE.
 * Based on FoFs 2-7, this is mostly a long-term animosity between VM and Icewhiz.
 * According to FoFs 9 and 10 (insinuations of Holocaust denial and BLP violations), there were also some additional problems with editing by Icewhiz. Personally, I agree with all these findings.
 * Based on such FoFs and knowing these contributors, I am pretty sure that the interaction ban could be sufficient. If not, everything else can be decided on WP:AE. If arbitrators feel this is not sufficient, they might wish to topic ban Icewhiz - based on FoFs 9 and 10. However, speaking in purely practical terms, I am sure that topic-banning VM is only going to harm creation of good quality content in this subject area. There was nothing problematic with content editing by VM, only his conflict with Icewhiz. One could say the same about Icewhiz (he is also a productive content contributor), except that he had a conflict not only with VM, but also with a number of other contributors, as should be clear from his initial Evidence and complaints on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment by ToThAc
Shouldn't there be a section link from FOF#14 (events after workshop closure) to Remedy 6 (delay acknowledgement)? ToThAc (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde
You seem to be moving rapidly towards closure here, but there's some fairly substantive comments on the talk page that you haven't yet responded to; may I ask you to do so? I am referring in particular to comments about the Icewhiz portion of FoF 3.2.4, some of which mirror my own concerns. To be clear, I am not going to defend Icewhiz's general behavior in this area. However, working in a contentious area requires scrutinizing sources very closely; particularly when government-influenced historical revisionism needs to be accounted for. The language used in those diffs closely resembles that used by experienced editors, even administrators, in dealing with fringe material in other contentious areas. I think you need to clarify what exactly you find concerning in those diffs, or you are unintentionally going to have a chilling effect on editors attempting to clean up the very topics on Wikipedia that need the most attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , since you're also now supporting closure, I would direct this question to you, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Et tu, ? The same concern has been raised by at least three editors, and has gotten no response from y'all. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You're seeing this in terms of absolutes again, as it your wont. I'm not defending Icewhiz. I am saying that the diffs provided are individually not bad enough to justify the FoF, and if they are used for that FoF, are in danger of creating a chilling effect. this is unnecessarily inflammatory, yes. But that Poland passed a law muzzling its press with respect to the holocaust isn't really in dispute (and yes, they partially repealed it later). I'm specifically concerned by ARBCOM citing the use of terms that are used by academic sources (diffs 8 and 9), as "inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments". I'm not going to give examples, for the very reason I described; I don't want one of our many fringe POV-pushers bringing a case to ARBCOM on similar grounds. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Sir Joseph
I echo some of the concerns laid out by others, and note that ARBCOM is not reading or at least not responding to them. My concern is that after all is said and done, as evident that Warsaw_concentration_camp didn't have anything about it being a conspiracy theory until Icewhiz cleaned it up, we're now going to go backwards and becoming the clearinghouse for further Holocaust revisionism. That you're "dinging" Icewhiz for his comment on Kurek is shocking. Further, I just want to note that the only reason why Icewhiz was blocked for a IBAN violation was because Bradv blocked him for violated a supposed Iban for edits that were 1 year separated. In addition, when I asked him why he wasn't going to block VM for an even closer IBAN violation, he shrugged it off with an excuse. So VM remains, as before unblockable. Also, while User:Xx236 was not part of the case, I do think his contributions should be looked into. He has made several contributions that fall well past NPA and CIVIL and just because he hasn't made a splash is no excuse. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Valereee
I'm a little concerned that this is a combined case. In most of the FoF, there's a major difference between the two parties. The incivility and inflammatory rhetoric evidence is lopsided. The ABF is completely lopsided. The Hounding is 100% on one side. It seems like most of the FoF are like this. It makes the case taken as a whole seem much worse than it is in reality -- for either party, really -- and I think it's possible this could cause some unconscious sense of "fairness" kicking in when voting on the proposals that actually would be unfair. --valereee (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Ermenrich
I have not been involved in this case and do not usually edit in this area (thank God!). However, I have had some interaction with editors involved in it. I do not feel that the solutions proposed by ArbCom will alleviate the problem, besides the sourcing restrictions, which I heartily support. The topic of the Holocaust and WWII in Poland appears to have a highly toxic editing environment, so much so that many editors and even administrators simply stay away. While Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz may be the biggest partisans in the fight, many other editors are also involved and their contributions do not appear to have been scrutinized at all. I also share concerns about several of the findings against Icewhiz that have already been expressed by other editors such as Levivich and Godric above. I realize that ArbCom is very busy with FRAMBAN, but this solution is no solution at all and will simply end up taking up more of the communities time in the future.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Xx236
A number of anti-EE comments show bias of some of the participants. This Wikipedia follows post-colonial Western POV. Icewhiz uses the narration to accuse the Poles and you are unable to understand your bias, because you belong to the Western culture. Similar narration describing non-EE nations would have been banned as racist, x-phobic. The anti-EE sanctions are obvious legal discriminations.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by TomStar81
Given that your proposed decision's locust of dispute explicitly states "This complex dispute centers on reliable sourcing, non-neutral point of view, and battleground behavior over a range of articles related to antisemitism and Jewish history in Poland, specifically in relation to World War II and The Holocaust, and including a number of BLPs of scholars studying these topics, I'm curious to know why the arbitration committee wouldn't elect to simply consider this case under the header of the older German war effort case located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort, merging the two to create a single, unified, user friendly (as it were) case concerning the overall German War Effort - which already included the Holocaust, a World War II based event carried out by elements of German's military at the time - and move to address both the Germany revisionist history of World War II (which K.e.coffman already pointed out is a known problem on Wikipedia) and the ongoing issues surrounding World War II's role in antisemitism, which have been specifically singled out here in this case. The committee, closing the German war effort case, noted in its remedies that: "'While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions." It would seem (to me anyway) that merging the two cases into a single, unified Germany in World War II case would allow the committee to better tackle both of the given issues and those that have apparently repeatedly arisen from them time and time again on the English Wikipedia. Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (Note: I copied this over at the Workshop page, but it appears you've moved here, so I'm posting it here as well just to cover both bases. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC))

To clerks
Please clarify. The case text at the voting tally states "The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close." The close vote is 5:0 and has been for 4 days, yet the case is not closed yet...? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the case is closed. See Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. – bradv  🍁  03:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)