Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence

Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) & Evidence summary — Analysis & Arbitrator Questions (Talk)  — Proposed decision (Talk)

Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)

Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023

Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed

Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk), Firefly (Talk), MJL (Talk), ToBeFree (Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk), Primefac (Talk), Wugapodes (Talk)

Evidence presented by Adoring nanny

Having more editors is good for this topic area

In particular, the article Naliboki massacre was vastly improved by a recent series of edits by editors with different points of view. Version as of mid February[1]. Current version (March 13)[2]. The old version was borderline antisemitic. I don't see such issues with the current version, though others may differ. The old version left the question of the participation of Jewish partisans a bit mysterious, with a few hints of yes, and somewhat-stronger hints of no. The current version makes it clear that the allegation is unproven at best and probably false. The old version contained useless info about a commission not having completed its work as of years ago. The new version summarizes what they did. The collaboration was required. For example, I certainly could not have done it on my own as I don't speak Polish.

That said, the differing points of view of the various editors, much of which involves issues I don't understand, is severe enough that it resulted in an AE thread[3] with some mild sanctions. Certainly some people were less than happy with each other. I do wish everyone would calm down. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Ealdgyth


(2285 words) Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Small aside - if arbitrators want copies of relevant books that I have in my library in print form, I do have a scanner and am not afraid to use it) Ealdgyth (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, and we'll be in touch if we can't get our hands on something. You're already doing quite a lot, so I'm happy to make scanning books an ArbCom job. Wug·a·po·des 22:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, a note of warning. I'm up to 28K words documenting inaccuracies that I've found in our articles on the Holocaust (not just in Poland, but also some of the more general topics) (and still working on it - I've only gotten about halfway through Treblinka extermination camp where I'm comparing much of the article to the sources and discovering that much doesn't support things - I've also done a lighter look at Extermination camp, Judenrat, and Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). Much of it is source-integrity issues and in a lot of cases, it's almost impossible to figure out who originally added the problem because so much reverting has gone on over the years as well as shuffling of text around without making sure the source citations stayed with things. So some of my evidence will be of a generalized nature - just showing how skewed or inaccurate our articles are without necessarily trying to "pin blame". I'll try to keep the evidence to the worst cases - rather than drive you all as insane as I'm feeling with discovering this massive problem. (Yes, I'm keeping a list of all the errors I'm finding and will fix them as the case concludes) (This section

The Holocaust in Poland:

  1. "Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence, the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high and by far, the individuals who circumvented deportation were the most successful." has issues with much of it being unsupported by the sources as well as not conveying all nuance of the sources
    Details: This is sourced to two sources - One is: this article by Paulsson which does not support the first phrase "Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence". (We're going to ignore the issues with this information not making sense within the larger framework of the paragraph its in). The second source is Lukas 1989 (2013 edition) p. 13. I've got access to the 1989 edition through internet archive here which is problematic for a number of reasons - Lukas' numbers are not generally accepted. He admits as much right here "Recent research suggest that a million Poles were involved, but some estimates go as high as three million. My own research puts the figure much higher than is customarily accepted." The conclusion "given the severity of the German measures... the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high and by far, the individuals who circumvented deportation were the most successful." seems unsupported also - nothing in either source says anything about circumventing deportation or the other. This information was restored with Special:Diff/1003491753 in Jan 2021 by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), of Special:Diff/1003309879 a removal by Buidhe (talk · contribs)
    Thanks to VM and MVBW for pointing out the copy-paste error here ... the details section should be:
    is sourced to two sources - this book review by Timothy Snyder in the New York Review of Books and this article by Paulsson. Nothing in either source supports the first phrase "Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence" (we'll leave aside that I'm unclear what "this occurrence refers to since the previous (and only) sentence in the paragraph is about hiding children in convents) and the next part is also not clearly related to the previous thoughts - are these fugitives ... fugitives from the ghettos? Or fugitives who fled to the Soviet Union? The last part is again, not supported by either of the sources given - neither source talks about fugitives vs. non-fugitive survival rates... so ... what's this supposed to be sourced to or discussing?
  2. "Historian Richard C. Lukas(source for the 3 million figure is here) gives an estimate as high as three million Polish helpers; an estimate similar to those cited by other authors." The "estimate similar..." section is not supported by the sources and is a definitely an outlier in the research, which our article cherrypicks without making this clear. The edit was added with Special:Diff/826962453 in 2018 by Nihil novi (talk · contribs)
    Details: The part from "an estimate similar to those cited by other authors." gives two sources - handily the first gives a quote from the source also. The first is Smith's Moral Geographies ... and the quote is "It has been estimated that a million or more Poles were involved in helping Jews" which flatly contradicts the "three million helpers" statement. The second source given is Lukas again... which can't support the "given by other authors" part of the statement. The original edit also gave this survival story introduction, this book that was self-published (Xlibris is a self-publishing outfit), the Moral Geographies book from above (which isn't by a historian of the Holocaust - it's topics are given as "social justice, human geography, enviromental ethics" etc) which still only says "Nevertheless, it has been estimated that a million or more Poles were invovled in helping Jews" (gives Polanski 1989: 240 and Lukas 1997: 150 as the sources) which does not support the 3 million figure, and Lukas 1989. Using Lukas here is obviously NOT a "cited by other authors" thing.
    @Ealdgyth: It looks like it was actually added in Special:Diff/794933161/prev by Poeticbent in August 2017. Maybe as a history merge? Nothing in the log on that though so not sure what the edit summary is about. Wug·a·po·des 23:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's possible it predates - I'm not the world's best at finding diffs (I am better at checking sources and stuff) and these articles are a mess of stuff being moved around all over the place all the time (without even taking into account the reverting that goes on). Ealdgyth (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. "In December 1939 around 100 Jews were shot by Wehrmacht soldiers and gendarmes at Kolo" is sourced to this source which is just a primary account of the shooting and is greatly undue here. It was added in June 2019 by Chumchum7 (talk · contribs) with Special:Diff/900372922
    Details: One - why is this shooting highlighted? And it is not clear who the gendarmes were - the article text seems to imply that they were part of the Wehrmacht but one of the witness statements implies that the gendarmes were local - it isn't clear if they were Polish or Volksdeutsch or something else. It's also not clear who did the supplementary text here - who's saying the Wehrmacht was involved? Is this some subject matter expert? The entry for Kolo in the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos doesn't mention any shooting in 1939...we should be using secondary sources, not primary sources for this information.
  4. "Between 1942 and 1944, the most extreme measure of the Holocaust, the extermination of millions of Jews from Poland and all over Europe was carried out in six extermination camps. There were no Polish guards at any of the Reinhard camps, despite the sometimes used misnomer Polish death camps. All killing centres were designed and operated by the Nazis in strict secrecy, aided by the Ukrainian Trawnikis." The second and third sentences are not supported by the sources or are flatly contradicted by other sources and minimizes Polish contributions to the killing of Jews - there were Polish guards at Belzec and the Trawnikis were not just Ukrainian but other Soviet nationalities. It was added in Special:Diff/791174510 in 2017 by Poeticbent (talk · contribs).
    Details: This is sourced to Rethinking Poles and Jews which is a problem, because the one bit that might support it - "there were no Polish guards at the camps" is pulled out (you can tell because the google books snippet is from a search for the phrase "There were no Polish guards at any of the camps") but the context is missing. The phrase is in a paragraph that is discussing how Polish accounts of the Holocaust differ from non-Polish accounts. So the phrase "there were no Polish guards in the camps" is what the partisan Polish accounts state, not a fact that can be stated in wikipedia. And the rest of the information given in these sentences cannot be supported at all by the source given. I'll also point out that this US Holocaust Museum article on Belzec specifically mentions that some of the guards at Belzec were "However, the bulk of the guard unit, between 90 and 120 men, were either former Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) of various nationalities or Ukrainian and Polish civilians selected or recruited for this purpose." which would seem to contradict the statement our article makes that there were no Polish guards in any of the Reinhard camps (for those not aware, Belzec/Sobibor/Treblinka are collectively known as the Reinhard camps - for Operation Reinhard which operated those three death camps).
Summarized at Bibliography


  1. "The Judenräte are notorious today for their collaboration with the Nazi regime..." this is ... quite the POV framing here, it should be attributed and is not the historical consensus (there are some historians who would not consider all members of the councils as collaborators) This was added to the lead(!) of the article with Special:Diff/1115124934 in Oct 2022 by Drevolt (talk · contribs). I hope I don't have to explain why "notorious" is an incredibly loaded phrasing that needs careful sourcing and attribution
  2. "While some scholars have described the institution of the Judenrats as a collaborationist one," is not supported by the sources and is a vast oversimplification of the research - many scholars qualify their views of the Jewish Councils with a great deal of nuance and do not feel that a broad brush "collaborationist" or "not-collaborationist" view is helpful. It was added in Special:Diff/964872329 in June 2020 by Piotrus (talk · contribs)
    Details: Tis is cited to two sources. One is The Holocaust and the Historians p. 135 which does not quite support this - it discusses that early works often charged the councils with collaboration but then discusses Arendt's Eichman in Jerusalem charge of collaboration and dismisses Arendt's charge. And the second is a specialized monograph on one particular council, not them as a whole. The original edit also had an additional source to Trunk's work on the Judenrats which did not support the information either
  3. As a whole, this article is woefully inadequate in summarizing the literature and research that has been done. The fact that it gets almost 7000 views a month shames me that I haven't dug down and fixed it.

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

  1. This section is more of a "feel of the article" discussion, which would require a LOT of background.
  2. Much of the Jewish force discussion is about material and who provided it and opinion about why the ZOB is better covered in works about the Uprising, and does not discuss the organizations that contributed fighters, how many fighters there were, who the leaders were. The focus distinctly feels ... off. A lot is devoted to help that the Jews received from the Poles - and not actually about the Jewish fighting organization.
  3. In contrast - the Polish section of the forces discussion is very detailed and describes a number of actions the Polish underground attempted to do... as well as very detailed descriptions of the aid the Polish underground gave. THis section totals 1019 words, compared to 637 words in the Jewish forces section. Comparing this to the coverage of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in Rozett and Spector's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust which covers the Polish aid to the Ghetto fighters as "They [the ZOB] made contact with the Polish Home Army, which recognized the new resistance organization and sent it a small number of weapons." and, describing the end of the uprising, "Several dozen fighters managed to escape with the help of ZOB members on the Polish side of the ghetto who led them through the city's sewer system." Longerich, in his Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews covers the Uprising on pp. 377-378 and doesn't mention Poles at all. Cesarani covers the Uprising on pp. 613-617 of his Final Solution. The only mention of aid from the Poles during the revolt is from a letter that Anielewicz sent to Jewish fighters outside the ghetto - Cesarani says that Anielewicz "was thrilled that the AL had conducted a supporting attack". Then on p. 617 Cesarani says that "Polish reactions to the uprising and the liquidation of the ghetto varied from admiration through compassion to glee. The AK and the AL mounted at least eleven supporting attacks on German targets outside and at least one AK unit may even have penetrated the ghetto to fight alongside the ZZW. In a press bulletin the Home Army high command praised the 'courageous, determined armed resistance... the fighters of the Warsaw ghetto should be accorded full respect and support.' Broadcasting from London on 4 May, General Sikorski called on his countrymen to 'give all help and shelter to those being murdered'. He added that 'before all humanity, which has for toolong been silent, I condemn these crimes'. But a Catholic underground paper saw the tragedy as an opportunity for the Jews to convert: 'Their souls will be cleansed and redeemed by the baptism of blood... they can be saved in the face of destruction by baptism and the true faith'." Shmuel Krakowski devotes an entire chapter to the Uprising in The War of the Doomed and very very little is mentioned about Polish forces taking part in his detailed description of events during the uprising. I have no diffs for this as the edit history of the article is a bit of a mess. I welcome someone using "Who Wrote This" detangling the edit history.
  4. Along with the above - listed in the infobox as "supporting" the Jewish Uprising are the Home Army and the Gwardia Ludowa, but in light of the historians above, I'm not sure we can really say that historians would agree that their aid was significant and uncontroversial enough to include in the infobox. This was added Special:Diff/1142187963 in March 2023 by Marcelus (talk · contribs)

General Government

  1. "Thousands of anti-Semitic posters were distributed in Warsaw." is not supported by the sources attached and was added Special:Diff/842732210 this May 2018 edit by Xx236 (talk · contribs)
    Details: This source the source only discusses anti-semitic propoganda in Germany, nothing about Warsaw. A second source is also given, but that's an abstract of a journal issue - and doesn't support the information either (the article may support it, but the article should be given, not the webpage of the abstract)
Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Added 30 March 2023

From Extermination camp - my full audit of the article is at User:Ealdgyth/Extermination camp audit. Note that I attempt to try to figure out who originally did the edit, but I do not claim to be an expert on diff excavation and I could be wrong on some of the "who did this" parts. The "this isn't supported"/"this is wrong"/"this isn't a reliable source" stuff though, I am confident of. I hadn't originally planned to introduce evidence relating to Poeticbent, but with the introduction of a long list of Icewhiz socks, I figured banned/retired editors were fair game.

  1. "The camps designed specifically for the mass gassings of Jews were established in the months following the Wannsee Conference chaired by Reinhard Heydrich in January 1942 in which the principle was made clear that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated. Responsibility for the logistics was to be handled by the programme administrator, Adolf Eichmann." is sourced to this copy of the Wannsee Protocols. Two issues - one - much of the article text is drawing conclusions/making statements that aren't supported by the Protocols text. Second - the protocols are a primary document.
  2. this source is from a consulting firm and relies on three sources - a 1944 source, a 1963 source, and a 1985 source (they state this in the introduction). We should not be using these older sources ... given the opening of archives after the fall of the Soviet Union, generally, all statistics from before then should not be relied on.
  3. "The mass killing facilities were developed at about the same time inside the Auschwitz II-Birkenau subcamp of a forced labour complex" is sourced to Grossman's original reporting on Treblinka/etc from 1946 and is a primary source.
  4. "After the invasion of Poland in September 1939, the secret Aktion T4 euthanasia programme – the systematic murder of German, Austrian and Polish hospital patients with mental or physical disabilities authorized by Hitler – was initiated by the SS in order to eliminate "life unworthy of life" (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), a Nazi designation for people who they considered to have no right to life." is sourced to this reliable source Death and Deliverance but lacks a page number, and to this source which is not really an academic source at all. The website does NOT support anything it's attached to. Without a page number, I can't easily verify if Burleigh Death and Deliverance supports the information. And in any case, the SS was not involved in Aktion T4. This information was added to the article with Special:Diff/645241196 this 2015 edit by Poeticbent. Please note that this edit had no source at all attached to it.
  5. "In 1941, the experience gained in the secretive killing of these hospital patients led to the creation of extermination camps for the implementation of the Final Solution. By then, the Jews were already confined to new ghettos and interned in Nazi concentration camps along with other targeted groups, including Roma, and the Soviet POWs. The Nazi's so-called "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", based on the systematic murder of Europe's Jews by gassing, began during Operation Reinhard," is sourced to this Yad Vashem source which does not support the "the experience gained in the secretive killing of these hospital patients led to the creation of extermination camps for the implementation of the Final Solution" (which has other issues as this implies that the T4 program was the impetus to the extermination camps, where it was more that the T4 personnel became available for use in Operation Reinhard but the search for ways to murder Jews besides shooting had already begun before the T4 input came into the process) nor " interned in Nazi concentration camps along with other targeted groups, including Roma, and the Soviet POWs." most Jews/Roma/POWs were not interned in concentration camps before Reinhard - so the juxtipostion here is misleading. NOr is "The Nazi's so-called "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", based on the systematic murder of Europe's Jews by gassing" supported by the YV source. The Final Solution was not only gassing - there's the millions killed by shooting in Eastern Europe - so this is also misleading. This was added in Special:Diff/681187167 this 2015 edit by Poeticbent.
  6. "On 13 October 1941, the SS and Police Leader Odilo Globocnik stationed in Lublin received an oral order from Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler – anticipating the fall of Moscow – to start immediate construction work on the killing centre at Bełżec in the General Government territory of occupied Poland. Notably, the order preceded the Wannsee Conference by three months," is sourced to this source (which I accessed with google translate) but the source does NOT support this information - the statement in the source is "The decision on Operation Reinhardt, and thus the construction of the camp, was most likely made at a conference on October 13, 1941 at Hitler's headquarters in the "Wolf's Lair" near Kętrzyn in East Prussia. In addition to Heinrich Himmler, senior SS and Police commanders in the General Government took part in it, including Odilo Globocnik, commander of the SS and Police in the Lublin district, whose jurisdiction the camp in Bełżec was to be subordinate." This information was added to the article with Special:Diff/681187167 this 2015 edit by Poeticbent.
  7. "but the gassings at Chełmno north of Łódź using gas vans began already in December, under Sturmbannführer Herbert Lange." is sourced to Christopher Browning Remembering Survival pp. 54, 65. This is not quite what Browning has to say. On page 54, he says "the itinerant 'euthanasia' Sonderkommando (special commando) under Herber Lange, on loan from Poznan. (This was the unit that susequently founded the Chelmno death camp near Lodz)" and on p. 65 "By November [1941], a fleet of thirty gas vans was on order, and construction of death camps was underway at Chelmno in the Warthegau (near Lodz) and Belzec in the Lublin district of the General Government." I can't say that Browning supports the article text - it's close, but not there. This was added in Special:Diff/681213547 this edit from 2015 by Poeticbent.
If these are too old or if non-parties aren't welcome as evidence, please let me know, but I'm showing this sort of evidence to show that there are severe issues with the suite of articles in the topic area ... Ealdgyth (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add that as of mid-March these were still in the article - I didn't dig in the history of the article ... much of this should still be there in the current version of the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added 26 April 2023

Moved to /Analysis

This will be my last bits of evidence. My spring has been .. wildly busy outside of Wikipedia and continues to keep me busy. I'd hoped to get further with User:Ealdgyth/Holocaust article audits and have a better idea of how big the problem is, but I haven't, and that's on me. But there are some big problems with source/text integrity and source usage in the articles in the area, leaving aside any bias issues which I did not have enough time to dig deeply into - but both sets of problems exist in the topic area. (And now I get word that I'm a grandmother again - so there goes some more "free time" for wikipedia... but in a good way at least!)
I would like to point out that while I've seen a lot of statements in this case along the lines of "things haven't been bad in the area in the last few years" (that's a paraphrase, not an exact quote of any editor in particular) and that "no one has been driven from the topic area" (again, a paraphrase, not a quote from anyone) - I'm going to point out that, yes, I WAS driven from the topic area. I pointed this out before, but I guess no one took my word for it. The toxic editing environment did drive me away - from both "sides". The constant hunt for sockpuppets (ironically, one of the biggest editors in that hunt turns out to be a sockpuppet ... heh), the endless reverting, the nasty language, the general lack of good faith ... all that drove me away. So, yes, some editors HAVE been driven away and thus I don't think we can assume that the topic area is quiet because IW was banned ... it's that at least one editor could no longer handle the atmosphere.
As to what I'd like to see changed in the topic area? I'd like for folks to start arguing from sources instead of feelings or opinions. And to argue from a broad range of sources, as the academics covering the topic area have a range of views on the subject - so should our articles reflect the preponderance of viewpoints - not just one. I'd also like for folks to stop treating the area like a battleground. And, while I'm at it and being a utopian dreamer, I'd like for folks to start treating all the other editors with good faith. (Yeah, that'll happen.) But, for ArbCom? If you're going to pass remedies - you need to back up those remedies. If you pass a sourcing restriction for a topic area, don't let Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive280#Volunteer Marek happen - where the editor trying to enforce your sourcing restriction was admonished by admins for trying to do so. Basically, ArbCom's spinelessness there enabled bad behavior and gutted the very restriction you imposed. After that AE request - why should any editor not assume that the sourcing restriction was moot and that bad behavior was allowed?
I get it, IW harassed some editors, badly. But lets not let that be an excuse to allow the topic area to be turned into a toxic environment where trying to fix issues results in abuse either.
All I want is to be able to try to fix the issues I see in the topic area. This is important stuff, folks. Allowing our articles to have sourcing issues, or statements that are provably wrong ... all that does in enable the genocide deniers (and no, I don't think any of the editors that aren't blocked/banned are deniers of the Holocaust). Let's try to FIX the problems, not treat the topic area as a battleground for scoring points on the "other side". Ealdgyth (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by El_C

Volunteer Marek BLPCRIME vio (March 6, 2023)

During very lengthy discussion at Gitz6666's talk page, a discussion which I had noticed in passing and did not read in full, Volunteer Marek (VM) violated WP:BLPCRIME using shocking language (17:55, 5 March 2023 — admins only), which I immediately (Redacted) and revdeleted (22:22, 6 March 2023 — admins only). No further action (or a recommendation for one) was taken by me save for that urgent revdel, citing specifically this impending case.

GizzyCatBella AE misuse (March 3, 2023)

A bit of background. A little while ago, new ArbCom member, GeneralNotability, dropped by my talk page to ask: Since you have the dubious honor of being a very active AE admin, I'm curious to hear whether you have any suggestions for things ArbCom could do to make your life easier at AE (12:05, 16 January 2023). I was away for a few months, but I eventually replied, emphasizing on enforcing AE's existing word/diff limits as a perennial problem and challenge. I also pointed out that enforcing the word/diff limit can often be a matter of some urgency in any given case, stating that such enforcement usually needs to happen fast, because once one user, say, exceeds the word/diff limit several fold, then another might reply in turn, several fold (16:44, 4 March 2023).

Now, consider GizzyCatBella (GCB) at WP:AE#TrangaBellam (permalink). GCB is (or at least should be) very familiar with the AE board: as a filer, as a party, as a participant, as an appellant, etc. Her misuse in this AE complaint —a complaint featuring TrangaBellam, a content opponent of GCB's (I think?)— was that GCB had used double the number of diffs that's allowed: +40 instead of the max of 20 (05:46, 3 March 2023).

The thing is I did actually get to it fast, stating only a couple of hours later that: Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs. I count +1,500 words by Marcelus and and 40+ diffs by GizzyCatBella. Both need to be trimmed accordingly (07:06, 3 March 2023). However, GCB replied (10:26, 3 March 2023) with @El C - I’ll trim some diffs by the end of the day (I’m sorry, I'm busy now). A reply I'm not sure I had seen at the time –but– too busy to remove the entire 40+ diff list in the meantime? Anyway, long story short, no changes were ultimately made to GCB's diff list, with that AE report now having been closed with her original +40 diffs remaining.

Volunteer Marek disparages arbitrator Wugapodes at the WPO (March 20, 2023)

Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The status of Wikipediocracy discussions as pertaining to this case, and their possible role as evidence, remains ambiguous. What isn't ambiguous, however, is VM using that venue today to publicly disparage arbitrator Wugapodes. The post in question reads (in full):

Wugapodes is not getting the evidence they want or expected so they're trying to introduce evidence themselves (in addition to just offering insanely biased and obviously incorrect interpretations of others' evidence). Based on my previous interactions with Wugapodes I didn't really expect anything different from them. So I think it's better if this is out in the open rather than happening behind the scenes (WPO direct link, emphasis added).

But at least it's "out in the open rather than happening behind the scenes"... Anyway, so are we pretending it's a secret, or, what are we doing? El_C 11:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volunteer Marek attempts to antagonize me at the WPO (March 23, 2023)

Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In response to my above evidence submission, VM now seems to be attempting to antagonize me at the WPO (where I do not have an account). Normally, I could not care less, but I submit that him doing so in the midst of an active arbitration case to which he is party, is bad form. The post in question reads (in part):

Right, calling someone's summary of another's comment "insanely biased" would probably not even raise much of an eyebrow ON Wikipedia if made at ANI or AN or something. El C is just being hyperbolic and pretending something is much worse than it is because they're mad they don't get to play police over here as well. Also, El_C, I did not "disparage" Wugapodes (I wouldn't do that since I have respect for them for other reasons). I *criticized* them, for something very specific. There is a difference and it'd be useful if an administrator knew what it was (WPO direct link, emphasis added).

For the record, I am neither "mad" nor do I wish to "police" the WPO, but again, I'd challenge that an active arbitration case to which he is party is different. El_C 04:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by GizzyCatBella

Responding to the accusation of misconduct (not trimming my diffs at AE) by EC_I:

  • I exceeded the permissible limit by error (I will be more careful in the future), then I received clear instructions from the reviewing administrator (I didn't asked for it) that said --> Quote: You can keep your diffs.. - @User:El_C - No, I don't believe I should be Topic Banned for not removing diffs after being permitted to keep them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About current threats broadcasted by the IP ( see Evidence presented by LEvalyn):

I addressed those recent joe-job attempts here including IP (see my remarks at Maybe semiprotect that Signpost talk page): Background: I was followed on Wikipedia and harassed by Icewhiz's sock puppets for the last 3 years. (Icewhiz doesn't know my real identity, thank God) His sock-puppets (or sock-puppets of his pals) acted to be me in the past. That was the latest attempt. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zero0000 - Arbcom is aware of this activity. I just wanted to make sure that it's clear to innocent bystanders as to who might be (I’m sure it is) behind those false-flags. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of blocked sock-puppets in the topic area since Icewhiz's global ban:

Note: There are additional likely sock-puppet accounts of Icewhiz with 2-3 edits that haven't been blocked. The above list also doesn't include blocked VPN-generated IPs, 1 edit throw-away accounts and blocked accounts that made threats and insults and aren't public to view anymore. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Icewhiz socks

Between 2019 and 2022, when Icewhiz was socking extremely laboriously. Francois Robere tag-teamed with him in both Holocaust in Poland, Israel-Palestine and other topic areas. Below is a list of tag-teaming and coordinated editing by Francois Robere, Icewhiz and related sock-puppets - shown on supportive interactions (less than two weeks, but usually much shorter)

Sock-puppet number 1 called Astral Leap (AL)

Status - Checkuser block

Interaction tool: [5]

  • WP:ANI (July 2021, Jan. 2021 and Oct. 2021)
1 - (AL then FR) AL alleges Topic Ban violations by E-960 . Then: 56 minutes later FR shows up to support them.
2 - (AL then FR) AL comments in a discussion and then again [6]. Then - 55 minutes later FR shows up to support them
3 - (AL then FR) AL opposes a ban appeal. Then: 1 day later FR shows up and votes the same way.
  • The Holocaust (June 2021)
4 - (AL then FR) AL complains about recent edits. Then - 1 hour later FR shows up to support the same ideas as AL and then even more [7]
  • The Holocaust in Poland (Aug. 2021)
5 - (FR then AL) FR comments in a survey they created. Then - 13 hours later AL shows up to support FR's position
  • WP:AN3 (Nov. 2020)
6 - (FR then AL) FR's final comment in a 3RR report they created. Then - 4 hours later AL shows up to support FR
  • Wikiproject Military History (Jan. 2021)
7 - (FR then AL) FR comments. Then: 7 minutes later AL shows up to agree with FR.
8 - The FR and AL take turns to publish to E-960's talk page notifications about reports they filed against him [8] [9] [10]
  • WP:RSN (February 2021)
9 - (FR then AL) FR comments in an RSN discussion on Gazeta Wyborcza and Oko Press. Then - 12 hours later AL shows up to agree with FR.
10 - (AL then FR) AL makes comments in RSN discussion "Revisiting APLRS". Then - 6 days later FR enters the same discussion to support AL.
  • Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Act (June 2021 and Oct. 2021)
11 - (FR then AL) FR comments in an RfC they created. Then - 20 hours later AL shows up to support FR.
  • Historical policy of the Law and Justice Party
12 - (FR then AL) FR remarks to oppose the Requested Move. Then- 1 day later AL shows up to vote the same way.

Sock puppet number 2 called AstuteRed (AR)

Status - Blocked as suspected sock-puppet of Icewhiz

Interaction tool - [11]

  • About the Civilization of Death (Nov. 2020)
13 - (AR then FR) AR creates a new article and makes a series of edits on Nov. 2020 and earlier. Then - FR joins in 3 days later having never edited the article before.
  • Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (Nov. 2019)
14 - (AR then FR) AR makes a sequence of edits to the article. Then - 1 hour later FR joins in with very similar edits.
  • LGBT Free zone (Nov. 2019)
15 - (FR then AR) FR makes edits to the article created by Icewhiz. Then - AR joins in 3 hours later
  • No-go areas (Nov. 2019)
16 - (FR then AR) FR posts comment to the talk page. Then - 5 hours later AR arrives to support FR
  • Talk page of Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (November 2019)
17 - (AR then FR) AR starts discussion on talk page. Then - [12] supporting AR FR comments 5 hours later
  • AfD for LGBT Free Zones
18 - (AR then FR) AR votes in the AfD. Then - 7 hours later FR votes the same way.
19 - (AR then FR) AR comments at BLPN. Then - 14 hours later FR comments responding to AR.
  • AfD for About the Civilization of Death
20 - (AR then FR) AR votes at an AfD. Then - 23 hours later FR votes the same way

Sock number 3 called Bob not snob (BnotS)

Status - ArbCom blocked

Interaction tool : [13]

  • WP:RSN (Feb. 2021)
21 - (FR then BnotS) FR comments at RSN. Then - only 8 minutes later BnotS comments the same way in the same discussion
  • WP:ARCA (March 2021)
22 - (FR then BnotS) FR comments at ARCA. Then: 7 minutes later BnotS comments in a similar way
  • Holocaust in Bulgaria - outside the topic area of Poland (Apr. 2020)
23 - (BnotS then FR) BnotS votes in an move request. Then - 4 hours later FR votes the same way in the same request as the sock puppet
  • Witold Pilecki (Feb. 2021 and Mar. 2021)
24 - (BnotS then FR) BnotS remarks in discussion. Then - 3 days later FR comments along the same lines as the sock puppet
25 - (BnotS then FR) BnotS creates a new section on the talk page. Then - 3 days later FR remarks the same way as the sock puppet
26 - (BnotS) BnotS comments in discussion. Then - 7 hours later FR backs BnotS.
  • Axis Powers
27 - (FR then BnotS) FR comments in discussion citing a different Icewhiz's sock-puppet. Then - 2 days later BnotS votes in an RfC based on FR's remark

Sock number 4 called I Dream of Maple (IDOM)

Status - Blocked as sock-puppet of Icewhiz

Interaction tool : [14]

  • Talk About Civilization of Death (Nov. 2019)
28 - (FR then IDOM) FR votes in discussion. Then - 1 day later IDOM shows up to vote the same way

Sock-puppet number 5 called 11Fox11 (1F1)

Edits only occasionally the Holocaust in Poland topic area but nevertheless, Francois Robere collaborated and tag-teamed with them in this and other topic areas.

Status - Checkuser block

Interaction tool : [15]

  • Haavara Agreement (Oct. and Nov. 2020)
29 - (FR then 1F1) FR violates 1 RR and then self reverts. Then - [16].FR resumes edit warring 12 hours later 1F1 restores FR's original revert for them
30 - (FR then 1F1) FR complains about an account that filed a 3 RR report. Then - 13 days later 1F1 files a report against precisely the same account FR complained about
  • WP:ANI (Aug. 2020)
31 - (FR then 1F1) FR comments at ANI thread. Then - 1F1 remarks in same discussion 14 hours later then FR responds again directly to 1F1 3 hours later
  • Talk page Israel (Aug. 2020)
32 - (1F1 then FR) 1F1 votes in a RfC . Then -FR votes precisely the same way only 1 day later
  • Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement (Aug. 2020)
34 - 1F1 edits the article. Then - FR edits the same article 3 days later notice that FR never edited it before
  • Israel (Aug. 2020)
34 - 1F1 makes substantial modifications to the lede of the article that is reverted. Then - FR edit wars to revert to 1F1's version 3 days later

Sock number 6 called KasiaNL (KNL)

Status - Blocked as suspected sock-puppet of Icewhiz

Interaction tool: [17]

    • Page WP:SPI/Icewhiz (May 2020)
35 - KNL accused of being a suspected sock puppet of Icewhiz . Then - 17 hours later] FR shows up to defend them with WP: Wikilawyering
    • Page Anti-Polish sentiment (May 2020)
36 - KNL reverts text from article. Then - 8 days later FR makes exact same revert

Sock number 7 called Nyx86 (N86)

Status - Checkuser block

Interaction tool with FR: [18]

  • WP:RSN
37 - FR votes in an RSN discussion. Then - 22 days later, N86 votes the same way. More prolonged time apart, but there were a lot of sock-puppets in that discussion.

Sock number8 called JoeZ451 (JoeZ)

Status: Blocked as Icewhiz or someone working with them

Interaction tool with FR: [19]

  • Talk:Military History of Poland (Jan. 2020)
38 - (FR then JoeZ) FR complains about a source. Then - 1 hour later JoeZ451 emerges to support FR and removes that source on the related article
  • Home Army (Nov. 2019)
39 - (FR then JoeZ) FR and then JoeZ451 both edit war on same day with other users.

Sock number 9 called Eostrix (EX)

Status - Blocked by ArbCom (it was Icewhiz). This was the account that nearly became administrator.

Interaction tool with FR: [20]

  • Żydokomuna (Jan. 2020)
40 - (FR then Eostrix) FR makes revert. Then - 26 minutes later EX makes the same revert to help FR edit war.
  • Holocaust in Bulgaria (Apr. 2020). Outside of the Holocaust in Poland topic area. Also tag-teaming was another Icewhiz sock, Bob not snob, as shown above.
41 - (FR then Eostrix) FR votes in Requested Move. Then -Eostrix votes the same way as FR only 59 minutes later

Sock-puppet number 10 called GeshemBracha (GB)

Status - ArbCom block. Outside the Holocaust in Poland topic area.

Interaction tool with FR - [21]

  • Israel (FR then GB)
(42) FR votes in RfC and asks for close it. Then - GB votes the same way

Sock-puppet number 11 IP (176IP)

Status - Blocked for socking with proxies

Interaction tool with FR: [22]

  • Responsibility for the Holocaust (June 2020)
43 - (IP then FR) IP makes seven edits to article. Then - After 2 days FR continues with matching edits

Icewhiz-related socks or likely

Sock-puppet number 12 called Viking Drummer (VD)

Status - Blocked for LTA

Interaction tool with FR: [23]

  • Talk page Jan Żaryn (June 2021)
44 - (FR then VD) FR starts talk section "Draft". Then - only 17 minutes later VD shows up to support that Draft
FR and VD continued supporting each other on this talk page in several different discussions as the interaction tool shows [24] so this is more than one case of the tag-teaming
  • Historical policy of the Law and Justice party (June 2021)
45 - (VD then FR) VD produces accusations and personal attacks on the talk page. Then - only 4 hours later FR comments to support VD
  • Talk page Historical policy of the Law and Justice party (June 2021)
46 - (FR then VD) FR reverts on article. Then - 9 hours later VD makes the same revert
  • Jan Żaryn
47 - (FR then VD) FR edits the article. Then - 6 days later VD completes edits to article supporting FR. Then - 3 days after that FR makes more edits to support VD.

There is more but I think the above illustrates the problem clearly enough. I'll follow up with something else if the time allows. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answering Primefac's question - I couldn't find a single instance where FR and Icewhiz/socks disagreed. Only instances of supporting/cooperating with Icewhiz or other socks. They even stated at one point that they don't care if the material has been added by the Icewhiz sock and cooperated with Icewhiz's sock puppet called 007Леони́д see --> [25]


  • AE report scratched by sock 007Леони́д against VM where FR supports the sock puppet -->



  • Supporting Yaniv's sock by reverting user Zero to Yaniv IP version -

[27] (Aug. 2021)


  • FR creates an article - [28]
  • Sock puppet shows up within minutes to support FR

[29] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

François Robere BLPs violations

Accusing BLPs of antisemitism:

  • 6 - Jan. 28, 2020 Doubles up on the above with an edit summary (BLP) fired in disgrace without providing a source that says fired in disgrace

Background to demonstrate François Robere’s previous troubling history

François Robere block history

  • 1 - Mar. 2018 - blocked for 72h for edit warring at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II.
  • 2 - Feb. 2019: blocked for personal attacks for one week
  • 3 - Jul. 31, 2021 blocked for 48h for violating an interaction ban with me (GizzyCatBella)

François Robere administrative warning history

  • 1- 26 Dec. 2017 warning If you continue to be belligerent and personalise disputes, you will most likely be blocked or banned.
  • 2 - 27 Feb. 2019 warning As discussed in more detail at AE, I am warning you not to cast aspersions against others without convincing evidence.
  • 3 - 23 Sept. 2019 personal attack warning - ..stop attacking other editors, as you did on Dealing with racism on Wikipedia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing.
  • 4 - Oct. 6, 2019 warned to dial it back a lot regarding accusing others of anti-semitism
  • 5- Apr. 30, 2020 warned not to use SPI as a venue for continuing content area disputes. (Icewhiz sock puppet investigation)
  • 6 - Oct. 18, 2022 - warning You know not to make personal attacks .. Keep it up and don’t be surprised if you get blocked. for these edits were FR accused VM of harassment --> [31] and [32]

Note Levivich comment that confirms that FR was redirecting the page to possibly attack VM -->[33] - Can't blame him for edit warring that back to a redirect, he'd have his own section in that article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section deals with François Robere attacking/stalking/hounding me (GCB)

Mostly/already summarised at /Summary#Sanctions_history per the previous section

I asked them to stop following me around - they answered I'm not hounding you, I'm reviewing your edits (!)

Assurance that FR will avoid GizzyCatBella (RexxS comments):

Despite the promise to avoid GCB, soon after, they (FR) continue to follow me:

On August 9 FR received IBan with me for showing up in this AE report (despite promises not to follow me) The IBan has been set as 2 way IBan only because some admins didn’t like one way IBans (see admin comments in the report) Important - It was FR who yet again followed me not the other way around. That was what triggered the IBAN.

Post IBan

Finally FR gets a blocked for violating IBan

Soon after resumes hounding me:

  • refers to me on August 4, 2021 - Ymblanter's action (who blocked me) weren't done in a vacuum
  • on October 4, 2021 follows me here referring indirectly to me (notice also an army of Icewhiz’s sock-puppets in that debate who (of course) are voting in line with FR)
  • .. and violates IB again on Nov. 6 2021 by posting this note that refers to me asking Szmenderowiecki not to alter their comments here and Szmederowiecki’s response to me here This proves FR is still following everything I do.
  • .. everything see this example --> on 23 April 2022 I only mention Cyprus Mail newspaper next day FR edits Cyprus Mail article
  • .. and on Apr. 26 follows me here
  • then follows me here (threading of discussion doesn’t make it obvious but FR showed up immediately after me)
  • then follows me here
  • then follows me here to this talk page 9 minutes after I posted my comment
  • then I vote Support next day FR follows and votes Oppose
  • then on Jan. 13 posts links that refer to me in his evidence that again violate his topic ban

And now the latest IBAN violation on Mar. 30, 2023 - My above examples demonstrate that the latest not great but not sanctionable were FR keeps violating, gaming and skirting the borders of his Iban with me isn’t an isolated incident and should actually become sanctionable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section deals with François Robere stalking and harassing MyMolobo

François Robere was also stalking and harassing MyMolobo. This is relevant particularly in the context of Molobo's dramatic statement shortly before he had a mental breakdown and left the project:

The continued harassment by Icewhiz, and wikipedia attacks by François Robere and to lesser extent Levivich has led to severe detoriation of my health, loss of my job and contributed to eventual mini stroke and hospital confimment. As such I have largely decided to leave Wikipedia.. Icewhiz and François Robere can congratulate themselves - I will no longer write on Wikipedia. Arbcom-please delete my account.

FR was warned that if he continues hounding and harassing MyMolobo: Steps will have to be taken to ensure there's no repetition of that.

Below just a few examples of the above said hounding/harassment to illustrate the issue:

  • 3 - This is an example of the personal attack on MyMolobo calling his edits dishonest

Here are more evidence of following MyMolobo to articles FR never edited before (on the same day - 3 different articles)

  • 8 - May 19, 2020 FR removes German from the phrase Nazi Germany (sentence Molobo entered) and that was the whole point in that sentence. Obvious provocation.

Finally MyMolobo left the project in a dramatic fashion. 😔 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section deals with François Robere personal attacks

Not summarised at this time
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Against me:

Against Piotrus:

  • 30 Apr. 2020 Personal attacks and insinuations of anti-Semitism - see the link to Piotr’s plea to refactor

Against VM:

This section deals with François Robere’s hypocrisy

not summarised
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

FR is using not allowed sources if they fit his POV or removes them if they don’t, citing WP:APLRS.


  • on Nov. 20, 2019 - FR removes newspaper as a source citing in edit summary Sourcing restrictions on topic area see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations
  • on Jan. 20, 2020 FR again removes Polish newspaper as a source (link below)


He is well aware of sourcing expectations in this topic area, but what is added or removed depends on what he likes.

Other of FR

Not summarised
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • 1- Added this Despite clear opposition on the talk page (Jesus Christ King of Poland-->[36] This was very clearly POINTless BAITing.
  • 3 - Reverted not sourced/sources misrepresented and possible BLP violation- (article FR never edited before) to Icewhiz’ version (FR restored false information to banned Icewhiz version)
  • 4 - removes tag again (issue never addressed)
  • 6 - Battleground mentality - admits to Levivich that he is collecting diffs on VM and others
  • 7 - Block shopping at Sandstein’s talk page, I was the editor who welcomed new users (see my edits dated one day before the date of the link below and my follow up comment)

There is much more, but I have no time for it. I recall most from my memory... However, I believe the above illustration demonstrates the problematic behaviour of FR very clearly and helps to reveal the real situation in this topic area. (The Holocaust in Poland). - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by LEvalyn

Battleground mentalities create a shockingly toxic editing environment

My primary interest is in historical books. Following a request for input at WP Books, I went to the talk page for The Forgotten Holocaust. I made a small number of comments offering what I think were fairly unobjectionable suggestions, based on my expertise with book articles: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. For these comments, an anonymous threat was left on my talk page. You will see that I am accused of Slandering the reputation of Poland and lying about Jewish communist crimes even though not one of my comments said anything about Poland or Jewish people. That escalation suggests a severe and deeply entrenched battleground mentality somewhere. This is the very first online threat of any kind I have received in my life, and I am not a young person. Something is very, very wrong here.

I was already growing exhausted by the talk page when this threat occurred. Although the anonymous threat is the most alarming part, I would also observe the following troubling phenomena:

  • Piotrus and Nihil Novi seemed so caught up in "fighting" that they fought deletion scarecrows, as if they couldn't even understand what others were discussing: Piotrus Nihil Novi
  • Piotrus and GizzyCatBella made heavy use of the idea that the article is somehow obliged to represent every book review, and opposed the mere concept of removing any material: GizzyCatBella Piotrus -- an approach I consider intentionally obstructionist in this context
  • In general, Piotrus' contributions were long, unconstructive, misrepresented academic norms, and misunderstood his interlocutors, as here (see the reply), and in this very strange argument about a review published in the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society.

The key obstructive move I encountered was a large number of small claims that are so strange that they are hard to respond to. I question Piotrus' willingness or WP:COMPETENCE to evaluate appropriate sources in this context. I see very alarming behaviour from Piotrus, Nihil Novi, and GizzyCatBella, which will drive away constructive editors. And I think it would be well worth investigating the IP address of the anonymous threat I received. [signing retroactively, sorry ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Zero0000

Threats. The stupid threats with deliberately stereotypical language left by on the talk pages of multiple users just as this case opens is just so convenient. Since the only plausible effect of this trolling was to prejudice the case in the anti-Polish direction, the most likely explanation is that the troll intended exactly that. False flag, in other words, and I'm confident the committee won't fall for it. Zerotalk 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to LEvalyn. I studied Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust diff-by-diff starting at the first version edited by LEvalyn. It had been suggested that the article deserved a TNT because of Grabowski&Klein's attack on it, and LEvalyn agreed. (As an aside, I believe Wikipedia should never offload its responsibility for article content to an external person or group.) LEvalyn came to that talk page with the claim of being an expert on writing articles about books [44] but encountered resistance. What followed after that was a garden-variety non-toxic discussion about what the article should contain and what its structure should be. It is perfectly reasonable to have different opinions on how and how many book reviews should be mentioned in an article on a book. LEvalyn asserted: "any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book",[45] but that is not true; lots of mainstream history books get critical reviews and sometimes entire journal issues are devoted to debate about them. LEvalyn is concerned that the article might give someone a positive impression of the book.[46] LEvalyn's charges against Piotrus have no foundation; in fact Piotrus only offered fair opinion expressed politely. Agree with those opinions or not, they were not "long", nor "unconstructive", nor did they "misrepresent academic norms". It was Piotrus who asked for a 3O.[47] GCB's hanging offence was a single sentence suggesting that the article be expanded! In my opinion, LEvalyn did not identify any behavioral problems and the talk about driving people away is silly. Zerotalk 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence from Grabowski and Klein

Here I'll provide a few examples of charges made in the published essay of Grabowski and Klein (G&K) and the Wikipedia edits they refer to. My bolding throughout.

Case Study #1. The charge that editors promote Nazi stereotypes.

Summarised generally at /Summary#Article and response with similar evidence at the response by Piotrus

From G&K:

"Some statements hint that Jews are racially different from ethnic Poles ... Take the claim in the History of the Jews in Poland article, that Jews have 'specific physical characteristics.' The citation for this sentence is a broken link to a website referencing Nechama Tec.[1] Nechama Tec has said that the Germans used ‘the emotional argument that the Jews of Europe were not simply another ethnic minority, but rather a separate race, with separate and readily distinguishable values and, in particular, physical characteristics.’ Tec never said that Jews looked different, though. Indeed, she emphasized that ‘belying this myth was the fact that the Germans occupying Poland could not, by employing their own distinctions, separate Jew from Christian.[2] There were many stereotypes that Jews in hiding had to be aware of, but it is one thing to be aware of existing stereotypes and quite another to confirm their credibility, as the article seems to do." (p14)

Looking at the website we find it is a list of difficulties Polish Jews faced in hiding among gentiles, cited to Tec's book.[2] (Tec survived the Holocaust by posing as a Christian.) The relevant item is:

"Appearance-Jews with the physical characteristics of curly black hair, dark eyes, dark complexion, a long nose were in special jeopardy".[1]

The history of this passage started when Jacurek copy-pasted the whole sentence from the website.[1] Moonriddengirl later flagged it as a copyvio, to which Piotrus responded by paraphrasing "physical characteristics of curly black hair, dark eyes, dark complexion, a long nose, were in special jeopardy" as "specific physical characteristics were particularly vulnerable". That's it, the whole story. Not only was Piotrus just performing a simple policy-demanded clean-up, he was actually removing the details of the stereotype. Moreover, both before and after the edit the sentence clearly does not say that Jews have particular physical characteristics, but only that Jews with those characteristics were in special danger. So there is nothing in the editorial sequence to support the title charge.

There remains the question of compliance to the source. Here is the passage in Tec's book that the website sentence comes from:

"Who then was likely to contemplate a move to the Aryan side? Who among the Jews did in fact make such a move? Physical attributes played a part in this decision since Poles had a definite image of what a Jew looked like, and some in fact conformed to this image. Among such physically identifying features was a long nose, dark curly hair, dark eyes, and a dark complexion. In contrast, to be blue-eyed and blond, the 'typically Polish look,' was a definite advantage, and those with such an appearance were more receptive to the idea of changing their identity.
In reality, however, not many passing Jews seem to have conformed to this image. My evidence from two separate groups, 308 Jewish survivors and 189 righteous Poles (where such evidence is available), indicates that fewer than 20 percent of these illegal Jews had a typically Polish appear­ance. The majority had neutral features." ([2] p35)

This is not a great match to G&K's claim that "Tec never said that Jews looked different". But instead they quoted a different passage that appears to support them and introduces an explicit German connection. Let's look at the text immediately following the part they quoted:

"There were some Polish Jews who looked and acted like Poles, and many more who though dark-haired and dark-eyed by no means fit the German stereotype. Unfamiliar with Polish culture, the Germans enlisted the aid of some Poles who were willing to help them ferret out passing Jews."([2] p40)

In other words, Tec is just saying that many Jews could be identified by Poles but not by Germans. So that doesn't support G&K's claim that "Tec never said that Jews looked different" either.

In summary, the charge is not supported either by the sequence of edits or by comparison with the source.

Case Study #2. Explicit accusations of antisemitism

Summarised generally at /Summary#Article and response

On page 8 of G&K's essay there is a summary of their overall thesis. I'll quote the part I want to comment on:

"Four distortions dominate Wikipedia’s coverage of Polish–Jewish wartime history: ... antisemitic tropes insinuating that ... money-hungry Jews controlled or still control Poland".

"Money-hungry Jews controlled or still control Poland" is indeed a classical antisemitic trope, and it would be a disgrace if Wikipedia promoted it. So we should look at G&K's evidence. However, G&K provide no example of this trope appearing in Wikipedia. I have been unable to locate one either.

Since the trope as a whole does not appear, we can look for the individual parts and leave aside the question of whether it is valid to combine them.

  • I'm confident that "still control Poland" (present tense) is a G&K invention that does not exist anywhere on WP.
  • G&K's "controlled Poland" (past tense) could only be a reference to Poland under communism, since no other form of government control is mentioned. G&K refer to the antisemitic Jews=Communists trope repeatedly, even in their abstract, but the only example they provide is "Poland's postwar Communist government was Jewish-dominated" added by Jacurek more than 15 years ago. They don't mention that it was removed by multiple editors 4 months later, though they do mention on another page that Jacurek was indeffed in 2011.
  • The "money-hungry Jews" part also seems to be a G&K invention. The nearest hit is some text about the wealth of Polish Jews in the pre-war period, but "wealthy" does not imply "money-hungry". G&K write:
    "Equally problematic in the same article is the sentence, ‘In many areas of the country, the majority of retail businesses were owned by Jews, who were sometimes among the wealthiest members of their communities.’ Since research on interwar Polish Jewry has shown that most Jews lived in poverty, this emphasis on Jewish wealth misleads readers.[3] The citation to this claim is page 84 in a book by one Peter Stachura, but that page contains no such information.[4] In its original version, inserted in 2008, the sentence had no citation whatsoever and was even more misleading: ‘some Jews were amongst the wealthiest citizens in Poland'." (pp14–15)
Starting at the beginning, Tymek added "some Jews were among the wealthiest citizens of Poland" in 2008, without a source. That was definitely a bad edit, no excuses. The following year, Malik Shabazz added Stachura as a source to the text which had meanwhile lost "of Poland". However, that source does not support the text; the closest is mention of "wealthy and poor Jews" and "they enjoyed, as an overall average, a higher per capita income and thus paid more taxes than ethnic Poles". In a massive cleanup prompted by a copyvio determination, "among the wealthiest citizens" was changed to "among the wealthiest members of their communities". Now it only compared Jews to other Jews, which is a substantial change of meaning but it still isn't present in the source. G&K don't mention that arch-"distortionist" Volunteer Marek was the one who weakened the sentence in this manner.
To say that some members of a Jewish community were the wealthiest in their community is to say nothing, so G&K's assertion that this hides poverty is hard to understand. The "majority of retail businesses" part of the sentence is not in Stachura but it is in G&K's source Marcus (p24). I don't see any problem with those particular sentences in the article as I write. Marcus is a good source for further economic information.


  1. ^ a b c Holocaust survivors encyclopedia, article "Hidden Jews"
  2. ^ a b c d Nechama Tec, When Light Pierced the Darkness, p40.
  3. ^ G&K give three sources, two very brief and one very detailed, namely Joseph Marcus, Social and Political History of the Jews in Poland 1919–1939 (1983).
  4. ^ Peter Stachura (2004), Poland 1918-1945: An Interpretative Documentary History of the Second Republic.

Evidence presented by Piotrus

Response to LEvalyn

First, I want to thank LEvalyn for joining the discussion (the more editors become involved in related discussions, the better), and express my sadness that she has been subject to harassment by an IP. Second, I'd like to note that I indeed misundertood the invokation of WP:TNT and at first thought some editors are suggesting blanking this entire article without a discussion, because I've seen such issues occasionally brought up at AfD where I am a frequent contributor (at AfD, in my experience, invoking TNT means saying "this is a total mess, delete it, nothing to rescue"). Misunderstandings happen, but I believe I was respectful and polite, and when my misunderstanding was explained (that concerns were related to a particular section, not the entire article), I did not press the issue. Third, I tried to create a friendly-to-newcomers atmosphere by explicitly inviting people to make edits [48] You are welcome to add more quotes, or remove ones you think are undue. I did not try to have a "last word", I just expressed my opinions, quoted or linked to some policies I thought relevant, and let others have their say. I did not edit war - in fact I did not make a single revert of any recent changes to that article, even through I disagreed with some, explicitly to avoid any battleground-like deterioration. With all due respect, I am unclear what policies or best practices I have violated by making a few polite and respectful comments in a discussion (I don't believe my comments violated NPA or any other policies). If anything in what I wrote was offensive to anyone, they could've asked me to WP:REFACTOR and I'd gladly have considered this. I'll end by saying that I appreciated LEvalyn's comments, I consider her input valuable, I am sorry to hear she found the discussion less then ideal. It was, certainly, not my intention to drive her away, and if anything I said can be refactored, I again express total willingness to do so, and I apologize for any impression that her contribution are anything less then very much welcomed and appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trust and Safety statement regarding my contributions to this project as well as harassment and blackmail intended to drive me away

I would like to add to the public evidence information that I have been subject to a lenghty on- and off-wiki campaign of harassment that explicitly concerns the this topic area. The following is a quote from a statement by User:JEissfeldt (WMF) from meta:Trust and Safety, issued to me in a pdf format that I can send to any interested party. (bolding harassment description)

To whom it may concern,
I am the Lead Manager of Trust and Safety at the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that supports and sustains the suite of free, crowd-sourced educational resources, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia alone offers 32 million articles in almost 300 languages. World-wide, our informational resources are accessed by over 10 million people every day. Collectively, our sites are one of the top ten most visited websites in the world.
It has been my pleasure to observe the volunteer efforts and valuable contributions of Dr. Konieczny, a sociology professor at Hanyang University, to the Wikimedia movement. He is a long-time volunteer contributor to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that the Wikimedia Foundation supports, and Wikimedia Commons, the Foundation’s freely licensed media repository.
Dr. Konieczny has been connected with the Wikimedia movement since December 2004, when he created his user account, user:Piotrus, and has since contributed nearly 300,000 edits on different Wikimedia projects. His main contribution areas have been in contributing to the English Wikipedia, especially in the fields of economics, history, politics, and religion. He has also been teaching and guiding new editors, and was one of the very first educators to assign university students Wikipedia editing related tasks as part of his curriculum. Through his contributions, Dr. Konieczny helped many students as well as fellow Wikimedians understand this educational movement’s core principles of free knowledge distribution, working cooperatively and transparently across borders and cultures. His skills of researching and neutrally presenting facts have been a huge asset to the movement and was celebrated on the Foundation’s official blog.
It has been brought to our attention that Dr. Koniezcny’s involvement in the Wikimedia movement’s educational work has generated severe harassment against him, both online and in real life. This is unfortunately sometimes the case when Wikimedia volunteer editors work on controversial topics to offer balanced coverage, based on reliable sources. In Dr. Konieczny’s case, we believe the person behind the harassment campaign he’s been experiencing to be user:Icewhiz, a volunteer whose editing has been problematic for some time and resulted in his indefinite community block from the English Wikipedia back in October of 2019. It should be noted that multiple individuals have been targeted by said user in similar ways as Dr. Konieczny has, which has included but is not limited to doxing (sharing private or personal information), threats of legal action, harassing contact to one’s employer with false accusations, threats of harm, etc.
The Wikimedia movement relies on trustworthy and dedicated volunteers. As we all know, the internet is in many ways a lawless place; protecting its users most often falls to those who volunteer for the work and have no more legal power than those whom they protect. Our volunteer base often takes on personal risk in trying to make the sum of all knowledge freely available to everyone, in a neutral way.
Naturally our volunteers are often concerned about the ripple effect their actions may have on their personal, family or professional lives and sometimes feel forced to step away or resign from editing altogether; that people continue to volunteer in our projects is evidence of the depth of their caring for the Wikimedia Movement’s vision and mission. Volunteers like Dr. Konieczny work to make Wikipedia a strong and valuable resource for everyone, and their efforts are tremendously appreciated. If I am able to further contextualize the important work of Dr. Konieczny in the Wikimedia projects, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me.
Jan Eissfeldt Lead Manager of Trust and Safety
Wikimedia Foundation Inc

For additional context, I'll mention that the harasser directly stated, in messages to me that T&S and ArbCom are aware, that they indend to take control of this topic area through driving me (and other editors) away by, among others, destroying our reputation, on- and off-wiki, through media pressure.

The blog mentioned refers to [49]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conduct of parties

Original paragraph moved to talk page

PS. Evidence is supposed to have diffs/links. Well, regarding the two newly added parties. Elinruby has been doing a tremendous job with verification of references and restructuring of content at Collaboration with the Axis powers, where according to current article statistics they account for a third or so of content and edits ([50]). This deserves a barnstar, not being a party to this clustercase. TrangaBellam has recently created four articles related to historiography of the topic (Glaukopis, Mariusz Bechta, Tomasz Greniuch and Marcin Zaremba). They are not perfect but we are better of with having them than with red links. I could go on, but the point is simple: while some debates might be a bit overheated, Wikipedia is improving. The solution to all problems is AGF, not A-boards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Off-wiki activities causing damage to Wikipedia require a response

Not summarised yet; slightly out-of-scope but could be used in tandem with future evidence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While I have, as stated above, no concerns about on-wiki behavior by any party, I do have concerns about off-wiki behavior. Specifically, I believe that Champansh’s essay violates our policies on off-wiki harassment (also seen here). Additional policies of concern include WP:Aspersions, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. While it was published off-wiki, per past ArbCom’s statements of principles, it is relevant. Framing this with the language from our policies: I feel “threatened and intimidated” by how her essay discusses me; I believe that the essay’s goal is to “make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for [me] and to undermine, frighten, or discourage [me] from editing”, and that it “was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community” (for example, the time I spent on this ArbCom case means time I spent not improving the encyclopedia, and the resulting media coverage has reduced my motivation to engage with the project). This is related to the previously submitted evidence that the goal of site-banned editor Icewhiz is to harass volunteers (myself, VM and others) to drive us away from this project.

I want to note that:

  • 1) the essay authors were aware of Icewhiz’s goal (I have sent the statement from Trust and Safety to Champansh on December 1st 2020, and explained this issue to her at length in emails and voice interviews from that time) but they nonetheless decided to repeat Icewhiz’s claims (see VM's analysis here - Table 1);
  • 2) the authors could have written their paper without the need to name particular editors, particularly ones which are not anonymous and who have been subject to severe harassment;
  • 3) the authors explicitly stated that they desire Wikipedia’s governing bodies to initiate an action (It would also behoove the Wikimedia Foundation to look into the wide-scale distortion on the English Wikipedia…) and in newspaper article here (we will not enter into further polemics with Mr. Konieczny, leaving the judgment of his actions to the Wikipedia oversight bodies), and so intend to have "a direct and foreseeable... effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community”.

Therefore, I submit that if we are not finding the claimed systematic, intentional distortion of Holocaust (as claimed in the essay's very abstract), then that effect is "damaging" and requires a community responce, to prevent actual damage to Wikipedia (i.e. empowerment of harassment of me and other volunteers). This has already been raised by a number of non-parties in preeliminary statements. To quote User:Beyond My Ken from here: surely if the evidence shows that those claims [made in the article] are, to any extent, inappropriate, then Chapmansh should be judged for their attacks on those editors, and User:Nosebagbear: I do have a query whether certain of the accusations raised against an editor in the article would be viewed as off-wiki aspersion-casting. Academics are welcome to comment on and criticize Wikipedia’s content and policies, but when they extensively criticize individual editors, to now quote User:Tryptofish from here: It is longstanding community consensus that participating in off-site harassment/outing is sanctionable. This is one of the most serious issues in this case and User:Drmies [51]: Wikipedia editors can be and have been held to account for off-wiki behavior. And I'll end with quotes from User:Red-tailed hawk [52]: I am particularly sensitive to thinly evidenced accusations of conspiracy to intentionally distort certain topic areas on Wikipedia… alleging that editors are engaging in off-wiki conspiracy requires stronger evidence… people should not be using off-wiki platforms to attempt to further on-wiki disputes in which they have become involved and User:Cavarrone who cautioned against setting a precedent of someone using their RL position to attack other editors outside of Wikipedia, provoking a case against them within Wikipedia, and avoiding being held accountable for their statements.

With regards to the numerous instances the essay violates our policies. First it makes many serious accusations such as repeated claims of Holocaust distortion and labelling me and others “distortionists”. I enumerate a number here (since they were made off-wiki, no diffs can be linked, and quoting them fully would put me over the evidence word count).

Summarized at Article and response

Second, for examples of factual errors concerning me and/or other editors, including a claim already judged as false by previous ArbCom case, see: 2 Case of Halibutt (Halibutt is accused of deliberatery introducing a hoax whereas Vorthax is more likely the culprit here), 6.3 False claim that I inserted criticism into Polonsky's biography (I did not), 14 Case of Poeticbent's photo (repeating a claim ‘’already’’ analyzed and discarded by ArbCom in 2019: Icewhiz interpreted an apparent error by Poeticbent as a deliberate hoax), 7.1 On the false claim of "Embellishing Kurek" (I just added a mixed review of her work to her biography), 8.3 On claim that Muszyński article "authored by Piotrus, continues to read as a list of accolades" (the stub I created listed one state award, and had a much longer section on a controversy surrounding him) or 17-18 Selective quotations (which suggest I defend/endorse some fringe scholars where in fact I am cautioning against their use).

Third, the essay portrays me (and others) in a very one sided way, omitting numerous examples of where I criticized individuals described by the essay authors as nationalist/far-right, or where I praised/used as a source individuals described by the authors as mainstream scholars (even Grabowski himself), or where I added content that goes against the “heroic Polish narrative” or broadly defined “distortion”. See: 6.4 On omission of evidence that I and others cited or praised Polonsky and other scholars the authors accuse us of discrediting, 6.5 On omission of evidence that I and others criticized Kurek and other scholars the authors accuse us of idealizing, 7.2 On omission of evidence that I criticized Kurek, 8.2 On omission of evidence that I criticized Muszyński, 13.2 On omission of my additions of Grabowski's 2020 newspaper comments to talk pages of articles, and section 27 on ommission of content I've created that contradicts said "narrative" or "distortion".

Addendum: Champansh was active in this topic area in the past, for example making comments in discussions [53], [54], [55] and editing articles [56]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also significantly limited my editing in this topic area

Inspired by VM's analysis, I decided to look at my actvity on WP by topic area using this tool (spreadsheet available to Arbitrators upon request). I've analyzed three periods (from February each year): 2013-2017 (pre-Icewhiz era), 2017-2021 (Icewhiz and his socks era), 2021-2023 (post-Icewhiz, pre-case era), counting all articles I've made 6+ edits on, and grouping them into 1) World War II history of Poland, 2) the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed, 3) both and 4) others. Group 3 (both) contains articles that are in groups 1) and 2).

In 2013-2017 I've made 6+ edits (5580 total) to 374 articles. Out of those, 25 articles concerned Polish WW2 topics (390 edits), 8 concerned Polish-Jewish history (92 edits), and 6 (63 edits) concerned both. Percentage wise, that's about 7%, 2% and 1.5%. Approximately 7% of my edits concerned one of those topic areas, while 93% of my edits concerned other topics. In 2017-2021 I've made 6+ edits (5580 total) to 434 articles. Out of those, 25 articles concerned Polish WW2 topics (390 edits), 8 concerned Polish-Jewish history (92 edits), and 6 (63 edits) concerned both. Percentage wise, that's about 32%, 28% and 18%. pproximately 40% of my edits concerned one of those topic areas, while 60% of my edits concerned other topics. In 2021-2023 I've made 6+ edits (4284 total) to 253 articles. Out of those, 24 articles concerned Polish WW2 topics (544 edits), 18 concerned Polish-Jewish history (516 edits), and 15 (425 edits) concerned both. Percentage wise, that's about 11%, 10% and 8%. Approximately 13% of my edits concerned one of those topic areas, while 87% of my edits concerned other topics. And that 13% is significantly related to my already wrapped up project of getting a set of articles to Good Article/A-class level (Witold Pilecki, The Volunteer (book)) or close (The Auschwitz Volunteer, Fighting Auschwitz).

What does it mean? I call it the "Icewhiz effect". He was pushing his POV on many articles, sometimes fixing them (yes, we cannot deny that), sometimes damaging them (ditto - in fact, undoing this one massive attempt at disruption is what accounts for much of my editing in this topic area in 2021-2022). Icewhiz's extremly high activity combined with his very strong POV drew a number of editors into this topic area, resulting in some good content improvement, but due to his "white/black" true believer attitude, this made the area very contentious (a WP:BATTLEGROUND, see also my essay on the radicalization of users). Instead of collaborative editing, there was a lot of partisan back-and-forth. And once Icewhiz and his army of socks got mostly chased away, things are going back to normal (meaning, in other words, nobody is editing this topic area much, hence the enduring errors that Ealdgyth noted and nobody is fixing). Most editors who tried to fix them burned out and either left the project or moved on (or back) to other, less stresfull topic areas (for me that's stuff like science fiction, sociology and history of Polish literature, for example). For the project, it remains an interesting question whether Icewhiz-like individuals and editing style generates value (he drew people in, resulting in short-term content improvement due to intensive and controversial editing, but also burned people out, some - from the topic area, some - from Wikipedia entirely). But I digress. The point of my evidence here is that, like for everyone else, the "Icewhiz effect" has significantly decreased my motivation to edit this topic area (in particular, WWII Polish-Jewish topics; I am still unclear why regular, milhist-focused "World War II history of Poland" is within scope here - I don't think a single piece of evidence has been presented related to any content issues in that broader topic area). For better or worse, I don't expect things to change in the foreseeable future, since, bottom line, it is a very thankless job to try to improve those topics, as recent events have demonstrated. As far as I am concerned, others can tackle this (sorry, Ealdgyth). I have other stuff to do, where my activity is not going to result in serious accusations and off-wiki harassment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I do around here

Addendum to the statistics on my contribution (quality-levels). Within this topic area, my contributions included (since 2017): 3 A-class articles (as assessed by WP:MILHIST: Battle of Westerplatte, Battle of Hel, Witold Pilecki), 8 Good Articles (the three A-class ones plus Bombing of Wieluń, Stanisław Kot, Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz, The Volunteer (book). Róża Maria Goździewska) and a few dozen DYKs (list available on my userpage). Outside this TA, in that time period, I wrote other 16 GAs and ~150 DYKs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since 2021 I've created 183 new articles, out of which ~23 articles are in the topic area of this case: Modernity and the Holocaust (March 2023), Poland's Holocaust (February 2022), The Eagle Unbowed (January 2023), Stanisław Burhardt-Bukacki (December 2022), Detached Unit of the Polish Army (December 2022), Trail of Hope (November 2022), Story of a Secret State (September 2022), Japan and the Holocaust (September 2021), FDR and the Jews (June 2021), Rescuers: Portraits of Moral Courage in the Holocaust (June 2021), List of Chief Rabbis of Poland (May 2021), Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz (May 2021), Wacław W. Soroka (April 2021), Róża Maria Goździewska (April 2021), Jerzy Pertek (March 2021), Krzysztof Komorowski (March 2021), Fighting Auschwitz (March 2021), Józef Kwaciszewski (March 2021), The Auschwitz Volunteer (March 2021), Marco Patricelli (March 2021), Wiesław Wysocki (March 2021), The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 (January 2021), Święciany massacre (January 2021). I believe none of these have been "controversial" (tagged with {{npov}} or similar, or subject to edit warring). Several have been DYKed or even GAed since. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I don't do around here

I don't get into trouble. Since my "tourbulent wiki-youth" aka the WP:EEML case of 2009 (of which this 2011 incident was an aftermath of) I don't believe I have broken any rules of our project, been subject to any sanction nor received any logged warning ([57]) or such outside the singular indicent in February 2021, which resulted in a month topic ban. A single instance of bad judgement in ~13 years, I hope, speaks for itself. PS. Since 2009 I don't believe I have filled an AE report trying to get anyone sanctioned; and I have have not been "filled against" outside some trivial complaint in 2011 (no action taken) and a harassment-report by Ice's sock in 2019 (no action, effectively speedy closed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Champansh agreed with me on wiki and thanked me before the publication of her essay

This is an addendum to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Evidence#Another_RSN_discussion by Tryptofish related to #Appeal_of_Jan_T._Gross_edit_summary on talk. I'd like to add those diffs to evidence so that they can be inclued in the related summary: [58]: I fully agree with everything Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus wrote and [59]: As a compromise, George1738, how about adopt Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's idea. This was my first and only interaction with Champansh on Wikipedia, and it involved me helping her student, for which she later thanked me in an email as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are not our past - addendum

In some recent discussion, someone pointed out the quote, attributed to Kaynes, that "When the facts change, I change my mind". That's a very commendable attitude I fully approve of. To add to the "Examples of Piotrus reconsidering past actions/beliefs" in the current summary: my recent RSN vote on Glaukopis, my lack of objection to the removal of criticism by Polonsky (in my Response, 6.3-6.4) - plus my usage of him as a source diffed there.

I'd also like to submit to evidence that already back in 2020 I acknowledged that Grabowski makes some valid claims about inadequacies in our coverage of the topic area, and I asked him for permission to quote his extensive critique from a Polish newspaper on pages of several related articles, and, having received that permission, I started discussions, extensively quoting from his article, on several of our talk pages (13.1 and 13.2). Similar to this but more recent, I'd like note that I removed of a source criticized in G&K's essay here. And lastly, I'll submit recent Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#Białka_massacre as an example of a polite, constructive discussion in this topic between me, Gitz and Marcelus, where we discussed another claim from the G&K's essay and found soruces to corraborate their claim - and that I have corrected that error in the related article here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For another recent development I'd point to Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Dęblin_and_Irena_during_World_War_II#Restarting_old_disputes, and the consensus that seems to have been worked out there recently between me and Gitz (with some prior comments by VM and a non-party mediator); that incident is related to the evidence presented by Gitz that has been just summarized. For the record (re: conduct), I find Gitz's involvement in that discussion with regards to interaction with me to be polite and constructive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conduct of parties - addendum

Summary at /Summary#Positive_contributions_in_the_topic_area
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since I already discussed my edits, this section will be about others. This continued what I wrote under #Conduct of parties that was already summarized and hatted above.

Over the long period, I believe the most valuable contributions of the last several years come from Buidhe. They have created and/or significantly expanded several Good and even Featured articles in this topic area; some perhaps out of the narrowly considered scope of this case (FAs like The Holocaust in Greece, The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia, The Holocaust in Slovakia and several others), but some others directly related (Warsaw Ghetto boy, GA in 2018; Gates of Tears, DYK in 2018; History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II - GA and DYK in 2020).

In fact, while I would need to do more number crunching here, I expect that if measured in terms of DYKs, GAs and FAs, the topic area of this case (broadly constructed WWII Polish history + history of Jews in Poland) has an above-average number of high-end articles when compared to most other areas (ex. 15th-century Polish history or history of Ukrainians in Poland).

Since Marcelus is now a party here, I found his efforts to discuss various errors and organize discussion at Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust#My_comments_on_the_objections_made_by_Grabowski_and_Klein_to_this_article very commendable.

I'd also like to note that a bit over a week ago I suggested to all editors active in the recent discussions that we should try to collaboratively, in the spirit of Wikipedia, work on a difficult and important topic of Antisemitism in Poland (see Talk:Antisemitism in Poland). Two editors, both parties now, have taken me up on this: Gitz6666 and Marcelus (page stats) Their constructive editing there should be recognized as WP:HERE. (To be clear, I am not blaming anyone for not joining in - people are busy or just not interested, that's expected - but those who did make an effort should be commended for it).

PS. When this is being summarized, you might as well summarize VM's #Ealdgyth's 2022 attempt to improve Holocaust in Poland article which is about the same - I was about to add something about how Ealdgyth is doing great job at User:Ealdgyth/Holocaust article audits. Commendable effort, again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rebuttal regarding potential coordinated editing

Regarding deletion (the claim that “35 of the 47 AfD discussion GizzyCatBella participated in also had participation by Piotrus” etc.). TL;DR: I did not ask GCB to join any discussion, nor did she ask me to do so. Why she did join a tiny fraction (~1%) of all the AfDs I’ve participated in (she voted in a few dozen out of ~6,500 AfDs I participated in) I don’t know. More than 90% of those AfDs were outside the scope area of this case. In the period 2018-present, within the scope of this case, we intersected at only 10 AfDs; in half of those we agreed, and in the other half, we disagreed.

More detailed analysis. Let’s put things in perspective. Deletion is an area of Wikipedia I have been involved in for many years, casting ~6,500 votes and starting hundreds if not over a 1,000 of AfDs. GCB took part in ~1% of AfDs I was involved in and indeed it does seem that she often (but not always) agreed with me, but what is that supposed to prove? There are a dozen or more editors with whom I intersected in not just dozens but hundreds of AfDs. Here are examples, explicitly limited to editors I think I almost always agree with and vice versa. I am pretty sure I have a ~90% similar vote correlation with, among others: Dronebogus (we intersect at 90+ AfDs), LaundryPizza03 (150+ AfDs), Jonesta (200+ AfDs), Shooterwalker (350+ AfDs), TTN (400+AfDs), Zxcvbnm (450+ AfDs), Rorshacma (we intersect at 600+ (!) AfDs). If GCB took part in a few dozen AfDs and mostly agreed with me, activity in that range is likely true for dozens of editors (ex. Just Another Cringy Username (we intersected at 20+ AfDs, which I just checked - we generally agreed on all but one occasion). All of those editors, and this seems to include me and GCB, have a strong preference for ‘delete’ votes, as can be inferred from the breakdown of keep/delete votes by editor: Piotrus: 9% / 62%, GCB: 24% / 54%, Dronebogus: 6% / 80%, LaundryPizza03: 8% / 76%, Jontesta: 4% / 72%, Shooterwalker 5% / 51%, TTN: 0% / 73%, Zxcvbnm: 12% / 57%, Rorshacma: 4% / 57%, Just Another Cringy Username: 1% / 85%. - I guess that makes us ‘deletionists’, particularly in the scope of ‘notability of fictional elements’, where I think the vast majority of all those interactions take place. I'll note that I am a regular at that del sort list, so anyone interested in that topic will have a significant overlap with me.

Regarding all these editors, including GCB, I want to stress that none of them ever asked me to join a particular discussion, nor did I ask anyone to do so. Speaking for myself, I watchlist dozen+ of deletion sorting pages and I routinely vote in many I consider interesting; what motivated GCB to join a particular discussion - I have no clue. Maybe she looked at my recent contributions and found an occasional AfD stimulating (I checked a few and it seems GCB always voted after me; I certainly don’t recall ever following her to an AfD) or maybe at some point she also watchlisted one or more of the same deletion sort list(s) I monitor. Also, please note that the vast majority of deletions GCB intersected with me were hardly contested. For example, here’s the first ‘fictional element’ AfD GCB seems to have become interested in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shop (Stephen King). That AfD was indeed started by me, but by the time she joined the discussion at the very end, there was one keep vote and three delete votes by fictional delsort list regulars, her vote did not affect the outcome (which was at 4 arguments to delete vs 1 to keep before she joined in).

Regarding FR’s claim that fantasy fiction is not an interest of GCB’s (how does he know that?), reviewing her votes, I’ll note that here she mentions being familiar with “Batcave and Fortress of Solitude” (although to be fair, here she says “I am not a Star Trek fangirl”). I did not have the time to analyze all other Wikipedia contributions of GCB, so I am not prepared to conclude what is or isn’t in her array of interests.

Further, 99% of the few dozen AfDs me and GCB intersected at took place ‘’out of the scope for this case’’, and arguably all I wrote above - and effectively this entire set of evidence FR provided - is out of this case’s scope. To make this more relevant, I actually looked at all of GCB’s AfDs throughout her history and checked the relatively few deletions both me and GCB participated in within the scope of this topic area and I found that… we were as likely to disagree as to agree. The detailed breakdown of what I found is that:

In the topic area related to the scope of this case (WWII history of Poland and history of Jews in Poland), we disagreed 5 times:

And agreed 5 times:

The following 3 AfDs may or may not be related to the scope of this case (I couldn’t decide), and they show a similar pattern (we agreed once, disagreed twice):

And she did occasionally disagree with me on the notability of fiction too (ex. here or here - both AfDs I started, too).

So, over several years (2018-2023), I and GCB intersected in ~10 AfDs related to the scope of the case; we agreed about half the time and disagreed in the other half. I hope this proves that there is no improper coordination or such, within or outside the scope of the case. (Regarding the out of scope part of the evidence, I guess we learned that GCB leans deletionist when it comes to topics, mainly fictional, of dubious notability… just like me and many other non-party editors I named). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Elinruby


Out of scope; not clear how it relates to WWII or the history of Jews in Poland
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Read or at least skim the entire exchanges for the full flavor. The illustrative exchange is among the least graphic, and also notable for GizzyCatBella as the voice of reason. Each thread is essentially this, over and over again.

From: Talk:Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, section titled Category:Ukrainian war crimes

02:53, 23 December 2022 ...we should summarize. "Mass rape as a weapon of war" is a fair summary... of what the sources are saying. Adoring nanny

01:55, 24 December 2022 ...Gitz is... pushing his position that Russian forces did not commit mass rapes in Ukraine. My very best wishes

02:08, 24 December 2022 Gitz needs to stop edit warring against multiple editors. - GizzyCatBella🍁

Much more of the same

Case Study bis: 2023

Not summarised, no longer relevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Evidence for asking underlined questions, page number problems also (offers alternate sources which also don't have page numbers):

Not one of these has a page number. "Unlike the situation in other German-occupied European countries, where the Germans installed collaborationist authorities, in occupied Poland there was no puppet government.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" Elinruby (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Was there a collaborationist Polish goverment installed by the German authorities during the Occupation of Poland? Did you check all 6 sources you removed? Did you check talk page archives Elinruby? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) yes I did check all six sources. This is the second time today that you've gotten upset that I am verifying sources. Do I really need to link to WP:V? It doesn't require that a source be online, I grant you, but six (!) sources in a row that can't be verified is special. Here is what I was trying to add just now:
*Steinhaus: url does go to page 291, my mistake. However page 291 is a list of people arrested and does not support the text.
* Strahan: archived publisher cover page, no page number provided.
*Piotrowski: ditto Elinruby (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

PS: please lose the tone Elinruby (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby - I’m sorry that my tone (?) upsets you, I did not mean to do that. How about I'll share with you yet another source (with a quote) that says there was no collaborationist Polish puppet government during the war, unlike in most European countries, and you'll restore what you removed? Deal?
Source: Rethinking Poles and Jews
During the war, while in most European countries the Germans found collaborators that set up puppet governments, Poland had no such collaborationist governments. The Germans arrested masses of Polish intellectuals, whom they perceived as a threat. As a result, thousands of Poles lost their lives during that occupation. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
@Elinruby and feel free to choose more from this basket - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


  1. ^ The Contemporary Review. A. Strahan. 1942. Archived from the original on 3 May 2018. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
  2. ^ Lee, Lily Xiao Hong (2016). World War Two: Crucible of the Contemporary World – Commentary and Readings: Crucible of the Contemporary World – Commentary and Readings. Routledge. ISBN 978-1315489551. Archived from the original on 26 February 2018. Retrieved 14 March 2018.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference CT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference KPF 2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Piotrowski, Tadeusz (1998). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918–1947. McFarland. ISBN 978-0786403714. Archived from the original on 26 February 2018. Retrieved 14 March 2018.
  6. ^ Steinhaus, Hugo (2015). Mathematician for All Seasons: Recollections and Notes Vol. 1 (1887–1945). Birkhäuser. ISBN 978-3319219844. Archived from the original on 26 February 2018. Retrieved 14 March 2018.

Case study: Poland section, Collaboration with the Axis powers

Not summarized, might be if connected to more recent events
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(A timeline in reverse chronological order)

  • 12:36, 14 March 2018 Blocked François Robere. There was little indication that the edit warring would stop and editor declined to accept 1RR restriction on the article. As this is the first time the user has been blocked for edit warring, I decided that 72 hours would be appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ)
  • 13 March 2018 Deep Fried Okra: full page protection
  • 20:18 March 12 2018 Sentence_by_sentence subsection - If you review the talk page starting on February 16th, you'll see all of this has been discussed already, and multiple times, yet after so much editing work we're nearly where we started. Anyone? --François Robere
What is going on with the Poland section? <= title of archive section (converted to link by Primefac)

GizzyCatBella makes some startling statements:

  • 23:15, 10 March 2018 Go read this, [60] from your own people, I don't even have to reach to the evaluations of Polish scholars to prove how questionable is this topic. Drop that prejudiced view François Robere this is unconstructive. - GizzyCatBella
  • 06:30, 10 March 2018 Collaborators in Poland at the most could hold: Volksdeutsche, The Blue Police, Jewish Ghetto Police, Judenrats to some extents, Żagiew and Group 13. That's all thank you very much. -GizzyCatBella
  • 23:50, 9 March 2018 I'll tell you how I see all of this, and I’ll be straightforward. The truth of the matter is that Poland has never produced any organized collaborating element, unlike the other occupied nations. None. Poland was unique; the collaboration breathed solely on an individual level. This reality is inconvenient for some groups, so personal collaboration is being overblown to the absurd levels by people like Grabowski; his ridiculous claims that"the whole society collaborated" is complete nonsense. -GizzyCatBella
  • 19:18, 2 March 2018 The fact that the Germans attempted to find collaborators in Poland is unknown to the general public hence needs to be incorporated here. -GizzyCatBella
Features mediation attempt by Slatersteven, GCB Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Positive contribution: Marcelus and Collaboration with the Axis powers

  • [61]<-first rewrite by me for possible copyvio (plagiarism?) I discovered, word for word unattributed text from the report of the truth and reconciliation commission, whose copyright status is unclear
  • [62]<=my best rewrite
  • [63]<=Marcelus' rewrite, seems vastly better, with copyvio definitely exorcized Elinruby (talk)

Marcelus and Gitz6666

At the moment I can't find the original discussion where Marcellus offered to do this, but Marcelus deserves vast credit for his rewrite of the Jewish collaboration section,[64] whose referencing I had been unsuccessful in getting someone to address. (see RSN thread already put in evidence by Horse Eye's Back) I also felt the section was overly focused on blaming individuals and on the Warsaw ghetto. Note intelligent and helpful suggestions from Gitz6666, one of which Marcelus incorporated into the section. The second suggestion, he said, would be for an article of which the section is a summary, which is exactly what Marcelus and I had previously discussed, that the section would be a summary of an article not yet written. The section is vastly more neutral now. Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Piotrus has made a huge effort to address the referencing problems I discovered at Collaboration with the Axis powers, which, please note, seem to have largely not have been of his making. He has considerably improved several aspects of the referencing in the Poland section, including several sources that failed verification. I am out of my area of expertise there, so others may want to review what was done in the section, but the failed verifications are gone. For an example of a collegial discussion with him, please see here, where we discuss the difficulties of providing a page number for a reference to Eichmann in Jerusalem. It is still unresolved, btw, so if anyone has insight into the technical issue, or can find the supporting text in another edition, please speak up. Otherwise I guess the text will need to be removed. I also saw in a reference in one of the historiography sections that she is now believed to have been mistaken about the Judenräte, so if anyone can confirm that, perhaps we can explain the controversy rather than remove such a notable book outright.

I can provide other diffs of Piotrus behaving like the honest academic I believe him to be, but am presenting this in the spirit of adding new chunks of evidence sooner rather than longer essays later. Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support adding Gitz6666 as party

I have been working since February on Collaboration with the Axis powers and have with the help of quite a few other editors managed to improve the referencing and English. Possibly the balance as well. I am one of several editors who took an interest in the topic area, but I am somewhat bemused (although fairly serene) about being the only one to become a party, considering the peaceful nature of our work at the collaboration article. I am not particularly fussed about this, but since some other editors have behaved aggressively and belligerently and one of these is also a party, with whom Gitz was in fact working on at least some of the articles where arguments and accusations occurred, then why would they not also be asked to answer for that?

I have a number of diffs and analyses to submit but since the deadline to request to add a new party has as far as I know not been extended, I would like the committee to take note that if Gitz is added I may have some things to say, but VM has really covered most of what needed to be said on the subject in the Editor Interaction tool, so if the scope blows up it won't be from my 5-6 addition diffs about Gitz.

This is relevant.

Apparently needs to be said

Most of this was evidence outside the topic area. What was in the topic area summarized at /Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area

I laughed at a recent allegation that I don't work collaboratively, because:

Large-scale collaborations
Extensive referencing, recruitment, talk page discussions, structure proposals, two RSN discussions, lede rewrite.

Those and the other barnstars, as well as the editor of the week award, can be found here, with a couple more on the talk page. CommonsElinruby (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grabowski assertion correct?

Grabowski, quotes and taked issue with the Collaboration article: '...the Polish police (the Blue Police)... were forced, under penalty of death, to work for the German occupation authorities.’ The Germans did indeed impose severe punishments... but not the death penalty, and no documented case exists of a Polish officer being executed for such refusal.

I opened an RSN post about the reference supporting this sentence [66].

  • TL;DR #1 Piotrus and K.e.coffman had a reasonably collegial discussion and agreed that the source couldn't definitively be shown as reliable, although it met the criteria, and perhaps was insufficient as sole source for a contested statement.
  • TL;DR #2 GizzyCatBella posted an image, imputed death from text she translated from the image as "severest penalty" and appeared to question why I had doubts. Two other editors, not parties, said that in fact it said "severest penalties". Google Translate said the German said "strict penalties". I did not check the Polish. Elinruby (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Horse Eye's Back

General topic area

This is not my core topic area, my current involvement began at the reliable sources noticeboard when the newly published Grabowski & Klein piece was brought to RSN on February 10. I was the first at RSN to read and evaluate the source (which took me about an hour, I take RSN very seriously). At the time I said that the source seemed reliable and matched my own understanding of the topic area. I brought up Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#Mass removal of criticisms from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance[67] which had been stuck in my mind for years as egregious... I was heavily involved in a very important RfC above it on RSN Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA) and remember explicitly refraining from commenting because I was almost certain that it would lead to retaliation against me in the discussion I was working on. What this says to me is that this was always an open secret, we always knew that a certain group of editors would disrupt the project to get their way in their own little kingdom. We didn't need Grabowski & Klein to tell us that, anyone who was paying attention knew it. Since that RSN post I have involved myself rather heavily in this topic area, my observations and diffs post February 10 will be presented in future sections.

Here is the other time I didn't get involved in this topic area and regret it. Going back to 2020 on Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum we find Piotrus and Nihil novi engaged in a battle against all comers, they effectively stonewall @Chumchum7:, @Warshy:, and SarahSV (deceased). Those involved said it best[68][69]. I watched that whole series of discussions but didn't participate, in hindsight I feel great shame at that. I feel like my silence enabled abuse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back can you please link to the 2020 discussions you're referencing here? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 3#The historical context where the content of this page needs to be located, Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 3#A distinction, Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 3#Outsider comment. All more or less one discussion but flows under three headings. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole discussion seems to have started a few days earlier at Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 2#NPOV tag Wug·a·po·des 22:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO where to draw the line is somewhat arbitrary, Piotrus taking on all comers goes back to the beginning of Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 1... They've added 47% of the text over the lifetime of that talk page[70]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are not our past

I believe that the point of this proceedings is generally that evidence of misconduct or issues is provided but I would ask leave to also provide evidence in favor of Piotrus, among all the editors under discussion they seem to have made the most growth in terms of how they interact with other editors. The Piotrus I see when I look at years old diffs is not the Piotrus I see today, I like the current one much better. There are a few places where I've noted this but the one I have a diff for is[71]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional diff:[72] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for the mention of my counter-disruptive efforts three years ago. Such work is rarely acknowledged and so I appreciate it. For the same reason that you swam away from that one issue then, I am almost totally retired from Wikipedia now. But let me be clear, this is definitely not simply a case of zealous 'nationalists' versus the noble souls who crusade against them. The zealous 'crusaders' are sometimes so convinced of their own virtue that they assume bad faith in content when there is no such thing, and go ahead and disrupt the topic area based on their own projections of malice. A notorious case was Icewhiz, another case was Varsovian, both AFAIR indefinitely blocked or permanently banned from the topic area. At times, IMHO SlimVirgin was one of those problematic crusaders too. Wikipedia policy and guidelines already got it right long ago, that it takes two to tango. Many trolls have their opposite number, with which they exchange bait. Personal psychology becomes relevant because that dynamic becomes an addiction to conflict, with the impossible objective of winning. Btw I entirely concur with you about Piotrus and hereby vouch for him too. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I didn't think it was ever simply a case of zealous 'nationalists' versus the noble souls who crusade against them. While I agree that it takes two to tango from my perspective we seem to have a handful of editors who remain on the dance floor while the rest of the community comes in and out. So for example Trangabellam is new to the topic area and definitely has lets just say a whiff of the crusader about them... So yes its two tangoing, but one just got there and one has been tangoing for a decade or more (and should arguably know better). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recentish noticeboard discussions





Not summarised for now; most of these decisions did not reach a clear resolution or were poorly-attended
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.




In my opinion Volunteer Marek has engaged in WP:HARASSMENT against Chapmansh. This harassment is most visible in the form of repeated pings which occurred in the time period following the publication of the article. These pings began on the 10th[73] and by the 12th they clearly no longer served a legitimate purpose (Chapmansh had not gotten involved in the discussions) so I asked VM to desist [[74]] but they didn't, I asked them a second time to stop gratuitously pinking Chapmansh[75] they replied "I'm sorry but are you Chapmansh? If Chapmansh wishes to ask me not to ping them then they can do that (I've only did it a few times where it was pertinent). And can I inquire why you find it necessary to reply and comment on almost every single comment I make? This is getting extremely tiresome and is looking like WP:harassment at this point." which is just beyond what is reasonable, to turn around and baselessly accuse someone who has very politely asking you to stop harassing another editor of harassing *you* is completely unacceptable. IMO there is no compelling reason to ping someone who is not a participant in a conversation multiple times as VM did at the Village Pump, the first makes them aware of the discussion but what do the rest do besides harassment?

This issue was also raised by others who noted that VM appeared to be seeking retribution against Chapmansh [76][77]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Are there pings after February 12? IF VM continued pinging for a couple of days (even after you'd asked him politiely to stop) seems reasonable. May Chapmansh hadn't logged on recently but needed to know of several conversations when they logged on. Similarly while VM claimed that the paper was OUTING right after its publication, I haven't seen VM allege that since the first couple of days of the discussion. There is enough here factually that I can summarize it but "Harassment of Chapmansh by Volunteer Marek" is a strong claim and I don't think what's here is enough to justify it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably you are to summarize that as my opinion rather than a fact (for a neutral title I would suggest "Allegations of retribution/retaliation"). Pinging in several conversations is different than pinging multiple times in one conversation, which VM did at the Village Pump. I would also note that Chapmansh appears to have already been pinged in those discussions before VM did so, they would have been aware of them without the additional ping from VM. I tried searching for pings of Chapmansh but I wasn't able to figure out how to do that either in the general sense or within VM's edits, there are so many that going through each one individually is beyond the time I have to commit to the project right now let alone this arbitration case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are two from the 13th[78][79]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not summarised yet, could be folded in to the second round of evidence depending on what questions we have
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the topic of retribution/retaliation VM's treatment of the author of a piece in the Signpost is also illustrative and I would like to enter it into evidence: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Recent research, 3 March. Their greater than 40k bytes of text seem to go beyond simply getting their point across and bleeds over into attempting to denigrate, browbeat, and punish the author for writing the piece. This edit[80] in particular seems to be well over the line in terms of PA and civility, in particular the laundry list of behavior related links at the end separated by periods "WP:TENDETIOUS. WP:STONEWALL. WP:AGF. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. WP:CIR." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GizzyCatBella behaviour during discussions

Not summarised, no longer relevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Talk:Mariusz Bechta#Sources would appear to fall into that same basket. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Lembit Staan

Disclosure: my previous user name was user:Staszek Lem. I renamed myself after a polite hint from the son of Stanislaw Lem. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thoroughly surprized to find me listed among the main Polish Holocaust revisionists on wikipedia :-(. In fact I have close to none contribution on the discussed subject. The only notable altercation I can remember is about the bio of Jan Żaryn. From this disproportionality I may guess who were the main "inside jobs" for the article of GK in question.

Baseless accusation of me being a Holocaust revisionist

The article of GK says "After still more back and forth in July, including a five-part Request for Comment by François Robere,Footnote233 Lembit Staan and GizzyCatBella overhauled the entire article, simply removing the overwhelming majority of the journalists’ and scholars’ observations on Żaryn’s extremism" - the "simply removing" statement is false.

The fact is that the mentioned "still more back and forth in July" was a thorough criticism of the additions suggested by François Robere. On my part I analyzed the cited sources in detail and my major objections per WP:BLP were: (a) mistranslations, (b) too liberal interpretations of sources by wikipedians to the disfavor of the subject of the article, i.e., Jan Żaryn, and (c) what is more fascinating, the provably poor scholarhip of the sources cited which criticized Żaryn, making these sources unreliable. My arguments may be found in Talk:Jan_Żaryn#RfC:_Jan_Żaryn. If requested I can provide specific examples and more explanations. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

False / misleading statements about Żaryn's bio

Below is just nipicking, but I really have nothing more to say because I really did nothing wrong.

The article of GK says now readers opening Jan Żaryn’s page have access to his claims (for example, that Jews were to blame for the Kielce pogrom), without being told of their baselessness. -- In fact, the bio says: Żaryn <...> has stated that "a significant proportion of Jewish individuals... supported the communist authorities or... joined their ranks"; he blames those individuals for being part of Communist censorship and propaganda organs, who were "deceitfully ... silent about Soviet massacres." This, he believes, "intensified anti-Semitic attitudes" that resulted in the Kielce pogrom. -- I fail to see the logic in the transformation from: "some Jews were bad (provably true); this intensified [pre-existing] antiSemitism (provably true), hence pogrom (opinion)" - to: "Jews were to blame for Kielce Pogrom". In fact, Żaryn reasonably attributed pogrom to the rise of antiSemitism and he explained some reasons (in his opinion) of this rise, and GK made a sensationalist spin to make Zaryn look really bad. (He does deserve this, but what is "good" for a polemic newsblurb, not good for an article pretending to be scholarly).

I do agree with GK that the views (and the low quality of scholarship, and his engagement with that the "party line") of Żaryn are described poorly. But the phrasing "without being told of their baselessness" is a preconception indicative of poor scholarship of GK. For example, the bio says "Żaryn argues that the tensions between Jews and other nations in interwar Poland were mostly due to economic reasons" (well, that's not what exactly he wrote, but this is beside the point) - here is a book by Michael C. Steinlauf which basically says the same: the prominent position of the Jews in business in the interwar Poland was the main antisemitic argument that the Jews are "taking over" Poland. -- so much about "baselessness"; rather sloppy phrasing and poor scholarship, abundant in Zaryn writings. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Gitz

Selective quotation from Gross at Jedwabne pogrom, tendentious editing and uncivil behaviour

Summarized at /Summary#Jedwabne pogrom. Analysis began before summary and can be found here.

I know that what follows is a trifle compared to G&K's allegations and diffs, but at least it's recent and therefore maybe of interest.

I consider this comment by Volunteer Marek and this edit to be tendentious and uncivil. The sequence leading to them:

  • On 10 February, in the first paragraph of the lead, I noticed Gross's quotes about the Germans being the undisputed bosses of life and death in Jedwabne and the only ones who could decide the fate of the Jews, followed by an WP:OVERKILL on German responsibility in the Jedwabne pogrom. Why would one need a citation clutter to support such easily verifiable quotes? The quotes are on pp. 77-78, but on p. 78 Gross also says: As to the Germans’ direct participation in the mass murder of Jews in Jedwabne on July 10, 1941, however, one must admit that it was limited, pretty much, to their taking pictures. This passage was not quoted in the lead.
  • The edit summary of my first edit mentions the need to restore source integrity and article balance by supplementing those two quotes with others on Polish responsibility, and argues that the selective quotation from Gross is distorting the main point of the book. In fact, Gross's book Neighbors (2000) had a huge impact on Polish society and historiography by highlighting the responsibility of the ethnic Polish residents of Jedwabne in the massacre of their Jewish neighbours. The book opened a harsh public debate on the Polish-Jewish relations, which is also at the basis of the current malaise of the topic area. "The Germans were the undisputed bosses, full stop" simply misses the point.
  • My edit was revered by Chumchum7. This was a good faith revert followed by a collaborative discussion on the t/p. I did not restore my edit, but with this second edit I removed Gross's selective quotation. The edit summary mentions WP:V and WP:ONUS. Chumchum7 did not revert.
  • VM reverted and commented on the t/p (diffs above) in a way that seems tendentious and uncivil to me.
  1. VM calls my edits original research and complains of my creative and selective reading of the source. My reading of Gross is everybody's reading. VM knows well that the whole book (starting from the very title, "Neighbors") is about Polish perpetrators. Gross's point is clear: the Germans had total control of the area, but the Poles were not forced to do the killings. One can't omit the second part without distorting the book.
  2. VM says The "own initiative" are your words, not Gross' and Of own free will" and "on own initiative" are two different things In the t/p discussion I mistakenly used the words "own initiative" but these words were not used in my edits and were not presented as a quote from Gross. The distinction between "initiative" and "free will" is therefore completely irrelevant, and mentioning it in the edit summary is misleading. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Postwar Property Restitution

Prolonged edit war at History of the Jews in Poland between Feb-June 2019. Evidence of misrepresentation of sources, tendentious editing (WP:BATTLEGROUND) and disruptive editing (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).

  • 16:37, 22 February 2019 Tatzref adds text on restitution of abandoned property to Jews in postwar Poland reporting that a simplified procedure was set in place, entailing minimal costs, the return of property proceeded smoothly, thousands of claims were successful, there were cases of Jews advancing fraudulent claims. Sources are hard to verify (on paper, in Polish) or fail verification (Icewhiz claims the passage misrepresented a volume edited by Grabowski&Libionka to the point it was libelous in t/p discussion).
  • 23-25 Feb. First edit war between Icewhiz and Yaniv (removing) and Piotrus, Volunteer Marek (VM) and Galassi (restoring) [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]. Notable points:
  1. uncivil edit summary by Yaniv (rv antisemitic vandalism), who is therefore indefinitely blocked for tendentious editing by TonyBallioni [88]
  2. despite explicit request [89], sources were made available on the t/p by Tatzref two months later, on 21 April 2019, and the analysis by Piotrus and Icewhiz highlighted serious shortcomings, such as misrepresentation of sources (Grabowski-Libionka, eds., Klucze i Kasa, generally, spec. Skibińska, ivi), undue generalization of local microhistory's findings (Krzyżanowski, ivi), use of primary sources ("American Jewish Year Book", 1947-48) and (from 7 May 2019 onward) extensive reliance on a low-quality (biased or fringe, possibly SPS) source, Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? (Leopolis Press, 2012).
  • 22:49, 25 February 2019 TonyBallioni protects.
  • 25 Feb-1 March 2019. AE request against Tatzref (Icewhiz filer). No action taken. VM is T-ban'd for six months, François Robere is blocked for a week. T-ban for VM is overturned on 4 March.
  • 12:23, 12 March 2019 Icewhiz Remove content as it failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source, and was contradicted by available English RSes. Replace with content cited to academic English-language sources available online. Text reports that Polish gov. placed new limitations on inheritance, de facto preventing restitution to Jews, property of killed Jews and "unproductive and parasite factors" was devolved to the state, lengthy proceedings when Jewish property was occupied by Poles, Jewish heirs often murdered when attempting to reclaim property, extremely small numbers of Jews got property back. Based on high-quality, easily verifiable sources: essay in "Jewish Culture and History" [90], books by CUP [91], Palgrave [92], OUP [93], Harvard UP [94].
  • 04:28, 7 May 2019 Tatzref reverts Icewhiz and restores an expanded version of their own text, now extensively based on Golden Harvest .
  • 7-20 May. Second edit war between Icewhiz, François Robere (FR) and K.e.coffman (reverting), and Piotrus, VM and My very best wishes (restoring) [95], [96], [97] and [98], [99], [100], [101] (incorporating/merging some of the two competing texts), [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]‎, [107], [108], [109] and [110], [111], [112]‎, [113], [114]‎, [115], [116]. Notable points:
  1. Five reverts by VM and FR, four by Icewhiz, three by Piotrus.
  2. The analysis of texts and t/p discussion proves conclusively that Icewhiz's text is far better than Tatzref's "improved" text. See also FR's a few more sources in the collapsible box at 17:39, 12 May 2019 in the t/p discussion.
  3. Dubious allegation of BLP vio in Tatzref's text made by FR and Icewhiz here, conclusive evidence of misrepresentation of source Krzyżanowski here and misrepresentation of source Skibińska here.
  4. After Icewhiz and FR on 15-16 May published 3,500 words demolishing Tatzref's sources (misrepresentation of Krzyzanowski and Skibińska), the first to reply in the t/p is VM with This is a general level article. All kinds of details and speculations and academic arguments belong in dedicated article on the subject, not here [117] (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).
  5. 17 May-6 June, RSN thread on Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?, opened by Piotrus (see also here on t/p), followed by RfC opened by FR (result: not an RS, 9 July).
  • 03:37, 20 May 2019 El C protects This edit war has gone on for long enough. 30-31 May AE request against VM (Icewhiz filer) referred to ArbCom.
  • 3-4 June. Final skirmish: 19:03, 3 June 2019‎ FR restores Icewhiz's text; 20:26, 3 June 2019VM reverts I'm sorry, but no such consensus was achieved. Can you please provide a link where this consensus you claim exists was formed? At RSN, the discussion tended to the opposite conclusion. Furthermore EVEN IF there are issues with one particular source that does not justify making OTHER mass deletions of sourced text or unsupported changes; 02:51, 4 June 2019‎ K.e.coffman restores pointing to this discussion. Notable points: this and this comment by VM (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND).

Analysis. Something wasn't working properly in the topic area. The choice between Tatzref's text (text 1) and Icewhiz's text (text 2) was a no-brainer: cf. text 1 (22 February, 16 May, 3 June) and text 2 (12 March, 16 May, 3 June): it is clear that text 2 is better. This doesn't mean that editors supporting text 1 were not in good faith: I don't believe that at all. Besides, Wikipedia's method of collaborative writing does not guarantee that the outcomes will always be optimal. Finally, in the case of Jewish property the best draft ultimately prevailed. But it took two AE requests, one RSN thread, one RFC, 4 months of toxic discussions, 1 indeff'd editor (Yaniv [118]; see Icewhiz's comment on his user page: [119]). That t/p discussion shows a blocked and dysfunctional editing process, a process that was bound to generate "distortions" on many accounts; in an area such as Holocaust remembrance, it was also bound to generate arch-Pov-pushers like Icewhiz.

Naliboki massacre, 2018-2019

Not summarised for now; primarily "old" content in the Icewhiz era, but could be tied to current events if necessary. Recent AE conduct already summarised at /Summary#Naliboki_massacre
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

With regard to Jewish partisans being responsible for the Naliboki massacre, background knowledge: this is not supported by historical evidence, since basically no RS says that the massacre was made by Jewish partisans in general nor by the Bielski partisans in particular. Some eyewitnesses reported that the killings were carried out by Bielski partisans/by Jews, but subsequent historical research found no documentary evidence. In the 2000s Polish nationalists began blaming Jews, possibly as a balancing counterweight to the culpability of Poles in the Jedwabne pogrom.

Since February-March 2018 various edits from IP and Yaniv adding/removing claims about the Jewish ethnicity of the perpetrators; March 2018, Icewhiz removes FRINGE, UNDUE, BLPCRIME. This enough space for this error [120].

  • Notable point: extensive section on "Bielski partisans" (Jews). The section is nearly 50% of the text of the article. It doesn't say that the Jews were responsible (because it can't: no RS supports this claim) but is inherently, paradigmatically WP:UNDUE. It ends with the words Nevertheless, the presence of several Jewish residents of Naliboki during the massacre has also been confirmed by their names.

VM reverts WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKE it are not valid reasons for POVing an article. Rmv spurious tags.[121]; Icewhiz removes [122]; VM restores text [123] pointing to t/p discussion. T/p discussion shows that VM is aware of IPN investigation (in Polish) concluding there's no evidence they were Jewish, e.g. Please. Stop. Making. Shit. Up. The article DOES NOT promote any fringe theories. The article freakin' says that the Bielskis were NOT there, according to sources from the IPN (13:56, 15 March 2018).

June 2018 Icewhiz removes The IPN has since revised its interim investigative reports - going to "this is one of many versions", onwards to "some witnesses said this, but didn't provide a basis for it", to omitting it all together in later reports [124][125]; VM reverts while you can expand on the text, please don't just remove well sourced text [126].

July 2018 Yaniv removes [127], IP address restores you are attempting to whitewash Jewish crimes by removing cited sources of perpetrators [128]; Yaniv stop disrupting [129]; VM restores because you can't claim "this is being discussed on talk page" when you yourself haven't made a single comment there (and are here just to revert on someone else's behalf) [130]; Icewhiz removes Remove non rs (talk at hist club). Removing singling out of a single possible ethnicity in Soviet unit. Stable ver from 23 March is withoutthis [131]; Yaniv includes text The IPN has said that there was no supporting documentation for this premise [Jew partisans did it] + sources [132] and removes text and sources involving Jews partisans [133]; Tatzref restores [134] and removes new content [135].

February 2019 IP’s well-argued edit summary I removed the very problematic generalizing statement that Jewish partisans were perpetrators. This is still very much a debated question and if individuals were involved it was part of a Soviet attack [136]; VM restores [137] (no edit summary). VM keeps on restoring contents about Jews partisans being possible perpetrators of the massacre because... well, there were Jews among the partisans, weren't there? In fact, text also includes The IPN historian Kazimierz Krajewski reported that in the forest around Lida some 25% of the partisans were Jewish. [138][139]

Last step in the saga: after G&K's article was published, new users, including me, landed on the page to clean it up. TrangaBellam and I got a little upset with Marcelus, who was still very interested in reconstructing the movements of the Jewish partisans in the forest, to the point that he made an edit war on this (GizzyCatBella concurring on the talk page). It ended up at AE but the article is now in decent conditions, and the reading of the section Unsubstantiated claims of Jewish perpetrators is quite instructive.

My analysis. I really appreciate VM's essay Edit warring is good for you, which reminds me Machiavelli's view on liberty and conflict, which is at the heart of republicanism. However, in the case of the Naliboki massacre edit war didn't deliver the good - possibly because Wikipedia's methods is more dialogical than confrontational? I don't know.

Note that the G&K paper involves Piotrus in the Naliboki saga, Various editors over the years tried to fix these edits, but they were brought back by Piotrus and by his like-minded colleague, Volunteer Marek. This is unfair. G&K share these two diffs by Piotrus [140][141], which look well within AGF to me and, in the case of the second one, entirely harmless.

History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II, 2021-ongoing

  • 18-27 Dec 2019: Buidhe creates History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II
  • 27 Dec: Piotrus removes content about Polish supervisors beating Jewish forced laborers [142] and adds tags:"dubious" to source Farkash [143]; JoeZ451 (Icewhiz SP) reverts; t/p discussion, Piotrus argues that Farkash is a PhD student making exceptional claims per WP:REDFLAG; Buidhe edits toward consensus [144][145].
  • 27 Dec 2019-2 Jan 2020: pre-GA review discussion between Buidhe, Piotrus and Icewhiz SP. Collaborative and policy-compliant discussion (apart from the SP), AGF is very easy. Piotrus is worried by content involving Polish responsability, doubts the quality of the sources, asks for corroboration in other sources, which he gets. Article changes [146], Farkash is no longer a "historian" and is used as RS with attribution.
  • 6 Mar 2020: GAN, listed; 14 Sep 2020: FAC, promoted. Buidhe continues to work on the article‎ in 2020–2021.
  • 19 May 2021: edit war starts. VM removes text on local ethnic Poles and Home Army being hostile to Jewish fugitives because not what Zimmerman says [147] (see verbatim quotations from source Zimmerman p. 213 and p. 361) and removes simillar claims based on source Farkash because there was some discussions and redflag concerns on this back in Dec 19/Jan 20 but I don't think the edits were ever implemented [148]; Buidhe restores: This is a featured article. Please get consensus for changes before implemeting them [149]; VM reverts: if sources are misrepresented then perhaps it SHOULDN'T be a featured article [150]; Buidhe restores Your claims about the Zimmerman source are baseless, I just double-checked [151]. VM adds tag:POV section [152]. GKB makes mininal inconsequential edit [153].
  • 19 May: VM joins the t/p discussion, I've tried to implement some of the suggestions and address the concerns made above [by Piotrus] ... However I was reverted by Buidhe with the usual "get consensus" edit summary ... User:Buidhe. Please stop edit warring ... stop using aggressive edit summaries ... I'm taking it up with the person who put the misrepresentation of the source in the article in the first place. You ... Please stop claiming "no consensus! no consensus!" ... use of graduate student's work for WP:REDFLAG claims. In fact you yourself acknowledged these concerns in a positive manner in your comments from December! So why are you reverting now?
  • 23-24 May: edit war continues. VM removes restoring edit per NO CONSENSUS [154]; Buidhe restores The article passed FAC. The text, therefore, has consensus [155]. GCB removes Buidhe, I’m sorry but WP:ONUS is on you [156]; Buidhe restores [157]; VM removes [158]; DrKay restores [159]; GCB removes [160]; DrKay restores removing the contentious word "fugitives" [161].
  • 25-26 May: Chumchum7 adds the tag:"citation needed" [162]; Z1720 removes [163]; Chumchum7 restores [164]; Chipmunkdavis removes [165].
  • 26 May: Piotrus modifies contentious text [166] and adds Poles helping Jews [167]; Buidhe reverts with detailed edit summary [168]; Piotrus removes contentious text [169]; Buidhe reverts If you insist on restoring pre-dispute versions, the correct version is the one that passed FAC. Don't make deletions without proposing on the talk page per WP:FAOWN. [170]; VM reverts You can’t quote WP:OWN as a justification for acting like you own the article! [171]
  • 26 May. Ymblanter fully protects. 29-30 May. Virus Swatter (Icewhiz SP?) restores [172]; GCB reverts [173].
  • 19 May-27 May 2021, during the edit war, long t/p discussion "quotations requests", followed by longer discussions. Notable points: VM disputes that the text refers to "Jewish fugitives"; GCB: Buidhe, could you clarify the major concern VM raised rather than reverting [12]. Such a reaction is not what's expected; Buidhe explains she rephrased per COPYVIO and replaced "Jewish bands" with "Jewish fugitives" per WP:IMPARTIAL; VM disagrees: your statement is both inaccurate and cherry picked ... I would also appreciate it Buidhe, if you made an actual effort to discuss the disagreements and not only when you’re edit warring ... And let me point out, *again*, that some of these issues were already discussed previously back in Dec 19 ... don’t try to construct strawman here. I’m also not interested in your own original research; GCB concurrs with VM; Chipmunkdavis joins and supports Buidhe: The sentences cited to Zimmerman 2015 213 & 361 seem a reasonable reflection of the content per the quote provided; also Z1720 agrees: I think the above text is verified by the sources and I do not understand why it was so important for this text to be removed before consensus was reached; GCB is completely puzzled by their analysis; Piotrus joins We should make it clear that per the source cited, the "fugitives" were stealing resources from the peasants; also Chumchum7 adds to that side of the argument challenging the notion that the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people (they were hostile because Jews stole food and were communists); Buidhe I hope you agree that we do not want to be reproducing zydokomuna stereotypes on Wikipedia. Informal RfC proposed by GCB at 01:42, 27 May 2021. From there on, the discussion becomes TL;DR: around the end of May, no less than 8 proposals were ready for an upcoming RfC. Eventually Z1720 and Buidhe very reluctantly agree to remove the quotation from Zimmerman 361 (12 and 18 June). VM agrees No, looks good, thanks for all the hard work. However, the text with Zimmerman p. 213 and Farkash is never restored. Buidhe has abandoned the article. She explains in an interview with Shira Klein [174]:

    I completely stopped editing in the topic area at all because of people deleting content for ideological reasons (this happened, for example, at "History of the Jews in Deblin and Irena during World War II" and the 2018 Polish Holocaust law). I found it was a waste of time to argue and my efforts were better spent in other areas where people didn't delete my work

  • 31 March 2023. I Restored version that passed as featured article (FAC). Text removed in May-June 2021 without consensus on the talk page [175] VM reverts [176] and opens a discussion on the t/p with heading "Restarting old disputes" (ongoing).

Glaukopis (2021 and 2023)

Not summarised for now, see the relevant talk page section.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Our dedicated article describes Glaukopis as "nationalist Polish history journal catering to the far right"; G&K say that its long-time editor-in-chief, Wojciech Muszyński "openly praises the ONR, one of the most militant, rabidly antisemitic organizations of prewar Poland".

In a March 2023 discussion at RSN, all editors (Piotrus included) commented that Glaukopis is unreliable; the only exception was My very best wishes, who nonetheless assesed the source as WP:BIASED arguing that it can be used with care and with appropriate attribution.

Compare with a February 2021 discussion on the same source:

  • Volunteer Marek replies to Buidhe's original post Whoa whoa whoa. Buidhe is using "oko-press", a highly partisan outlet (I'd say roughly comparable to something like The Jacobin, itself not reliable, to attack Muszynski. These charges may or may not be true, but you can't do this here - this is a pretty serious BLP violation (17:21, 4 February 2021); Did you actually read the sources you're bringing here? (18:53, 4 February 2021); Buidhe compounds their BLP violation above by using non-reliable sources to smear academics (17:32, 4 February 2021).
  • VM likens Institut Glaukopis with universities that have their own presses and publish their own journals, with articles from their own faculty (some places, like MIT or Chicago, MOSTLY their own faculty). As long as the editorial board includes outside scholars and so does the peer review, then this shouldn't be a concern (17:23, 4 February 2021). Also MyMoloboaccount says that Glaukopis is Reliable -peer reviewed, includes notable cited historians (15:04, 4 February 2021) and GizzyCatBella agrees, Reliable - Glaukopis is an obvious peer-reviewed scholarly publication (17:29, 4 February 2021).
  • Generalrelative reproaches VM two times, first for an uncivil comment (François Robere's !vote should be discounted since FR has used Glaukopis as RS in the past), then for bludgeoning the discussion (eleven comments from 17:21 to 19:36, 4 February 2021; two more on the next day).
  • An Icewhiz's SP joins the discussion adding to the confusion. Eventually ten editors argue that Glaukopis is unreliable, seven that it is not, and the discussion doesn't deliver a consensus.

Analysis moved to the talk page

Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, 2021

G&K article says that The Polish government’s resolve to control the past culminated with the passage in 2018 of the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance (p. 5). Widely shared assessment, see e.g. European Parliament resolution of 17 September 2020 P9_TA(2020)0225: the 2018 law jeopardises freedom of speech and independent research by rendering it a civil offense that is actionable before civil courts to cause harm to the reputation of Poland and its people, such as by making any accusation of complicity of Poland or Poles in the Holocaust; OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media [177]; Amnesty International [178]; American Historical Association [179].

The writing of Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance took place with some disagreement between Icewhiz, François Robere (FR) and Volunteer Marek (VM) on 14 March 2019 (3R in 12h by VM) and between FR, Levivic and MyMoloboaccount on 17 Nov 2019. In Oct-Nov 2020 the article was more stable; Buidhe edited it substantially on 19-21 Oct and 26-27 Oct.

  • 1 Jan 2021: Buidhe adds comparison with similar laws including Turkey [180] and criticism by US constitutional lawyer Tsesis [181]; with five consectuve edits, VM revers and also removes other content [182], e.g. reference to Szczuczyn pogrom (carried out by Poles) that was included by Boud in 2018 [183] and reference to Kanika Gauba's "duty to forget" as the point of the 2018 Amendment, which was included by Icewhiz and MyMoloboaccount in 2019-2020 [184][185]. Buidhe restores undiscussed major changes, removing aspects that are significantly emphasized in most scholarly sources that discuss the law [186]; VM reverts Nooo, the ADDITION of this stuff constitutes "undiscussed major changes" since... you didn't bother discussing any of them. I've actually provided the rationale on talk for my restoration of version before YOUR "undiscussed major changes" [187]; Buidhe restores restore content from scholarly sources removed without explanation [188]
  • See t/p discussion stuff in lede. Buidhe: You removed a lot of longstanding information from the lead, most of which has been present for months without any dispute. Also, some of it was not added by myself, but various other editors; VM: No, I removed a chunk of UNDUE text which you JUST ADDED to the lede, less than THAN AN HOUR AGO! What are you talking about? Buidhe: The material that you deleted was not just my recent edit; VM: Here is what you added at 23:03 [17] Here is what I removed at 23:22 [18] The only difference between what was added and what was removed is the sentence "As most Ukrainians (...)" which is also undue for the lede. The diffs are right there Buidhe; Buidhe: This statement is false. WP:CIV?
  • 2 Jan: since Buidhe doesn't agree with VM's (−5,464) edit, VM doubles down with a massive (-23.707) WP:POINTy removal of sources and text: Restore "stable version" per suggestion on talk so that the recent major changes can actually be discussed. Will work to reincorporate subsequent non-controversial edits [189]. "Stable version" is the 15 Oct 2020 version, arguably the 5 Nov 2020 was already stable (in place 2 months without any intervening edits). 30+ consecutive edits follow [190]. Comparison between Buidhe's and VM's versions [191]. WP:DIS, WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:POINT?
  • See t/p discussion Mass removal of well-sourced content. Buidhe: I'm happy to discuss but it isn't productive to mass-remove almost half the article content as you did in this [27] edit, especially since most of it is well sourced to strong sources such as academic articles and so forth; El_C Volunteer Marek, you have removed tens of thousands of bytes, so now the expectation is that you explain in detail the reasoning behind that removal, not to mention touching on the origin of that which has been removed Given the extent of the changes a productive discussion is impossible. VM's If you are objecting to some other edit of mine then please be specific sounds mockery. No one could ever have the time to review all these changes.
  • On the same day, Buidhe adds a "Background" section to the article [192], which IMO is clearly informative, well-sourced and neutral; GCB removes @Buidhe, I have to step in here. I'm sorry, but here you seem to be connecting material from multiple sources to suggest a conclusion. This is WP:SYNTH. I will revert this edit of yours for now, but let talk about it at talk if you disagree. Okay? [193]. See t/p discussion Removal of historical background material. Unconstructive comments by GCB assuming Buidhe doesn't know the meaning of SYNTH (Please examine WP:SYNTH, and then please tell me what you think about the above combined material (...) Buidhe, it took you 2 minutes to reply....have you studied WP:SYNTH in 2 minutes or you were already familiar with WP:SYNTH?) and equally unconstructive (off-topic and misleading) comment by VM (The fact that the text “does not state or imply anything about the amendment” is precisely why it’s WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK). WP:CIV?
  • 2 Jan: Buidhe opens an RfC: Legal analysis section. VM objects The problem is that this throws together a bunch of additions that are probably non-controversial with a bunch which are, basically trying to force an up/down vote on the entirety. Buidhe: Basically all of it was deleted from the article by you, except one sentence from Tsesis. Seven "yes", three "no", one "Mhmhm" (by Piotrus). Notable points:
  1. !votes "yes" include Buidhe, François Robere, Szmenderowiecki + four non-party/uninvolved editors;
  2. Piotrus is actually favoring inclusion of this but has WP:POV concerns; he asks if there are RSs supporting the law; since no source is available, he suggests Maybe someone should contact the IPN and ask them to supply some sources?;
  3. !votes "no" are VM, GCB and My very best wishes (MVBW), who provides various reasons to support his !vote, e.g. content is redundant, the law is ineffective, and there are some really ridiculous laws in Russia.

Rebuttal of Chumchum7

Added as a note to /Summary#Jedwabne pogrom

I know this is a very marginal aspect of the case; but it is not marginal for me, since in his evidence submission Chumchum7 seems to ask for my topic ban (Interaction ban is not the solution, it will cause proxy fights through provocative editing in the topic area without direct contact).

Note that initially Chumchum7 alleged that So afaics, Gitz created the repetition of Stola himself, then used that repetition as fresh grounds for removal of the Stola pop-out from the lede [194]. I pointed out to them on their user talk that this was a glaring error and advised to self-revert [195], to no avail: they didn't reply, let alone thank me, but changed their statement into the funny So afaics, Gitz caused [no longer "created"! I caused it...] the repetition of Stola himself: when I restored it to the lede, he then used that repetition as fresh grounds for removal of the Stola pop-out from the lede (my italics). What happened, and how could one "cause" a repetition without creating it? This is the sequence of editing:

  • On 10 March 2023 I remove the contentious (IMO selective) quotation from Gross 2001 at Jedwabne pogrom (see my evidence) and also remove the citation clutter incogruously attached to it; on 12 March 2023 Volunteer Marek restores text and references. I do not revert, but give my reasons on the t/p [196].
  • On 13 March 2023, with a series of consecutive edits I remove the citation clutter from the lead: no information is lost, Gross's quotation is always there in the lead, and the citation clutter (Gross 2001, Stola 2003, Persak 2011, INR 2002, USHMM) has also been preserved but now is in the body (supporting no "sustained organized activity" could have taken place in the town without the Germans' consent). The edit summary explains Per MOS:LEADCITE, detailed references on Germans' responsability belong to the article body.
  • 15 March 2023. Chumchum7 restores the reference to Stola 2003 in the lead, thus creating a repetition in the article: see quotation from Stola starting with The plan was reportedly prepared. The edit summay explains that a reference to Stola is needed mentioning WP:CITENEED but doesn't explain why the first reference to Stola should also contain a (repeated) quotation.
  • 16 March 2023‎. I notice that the quotation from Stola is repeated two times and that the quotation from Persak is repeated three times. I interpret this as a mistake, which indeed it is, and with three consecutive edits I remove the repetitions but leave the references.

To sum up: it was Chumchum7, not me, who created the repetition on 15 March. By removing it, I was just doing trivial copy editing. I literally don't give a damn about Stola 2003, which was the last thing on my mind; Stola and Gitz have differing points of view is sheer speculation on Chumchum7's part.

By the way, Chumchum7 is a WP:SOCKLEGIT and I know nothing about the activities of their other account, but it's worth noting that the only article they have substantially edited on this project is Jedwabne pogrom (16.3% of the article is authored by them). Apart from severe bludgeoning the talk page (44% of the talk page is authored by them) they are responsible for the misleading quotation from Gross in the lead:

  • On 31 October 2011 Prospero10 added to the article body a full, not selective quotation from Gross.
  • On 8 November 2019 Chumchum7 separated the quotation on the responsibility of the Germans (undisputed bosses) from the quotation on the responsibility of the Poles (no direct participation of the Germans in the killings), on 4 April 2021 they created the citation clutter on German responsibility, and on 11 December 2021 they added the first part of Gross's quotation (undisputed bosses) to the lead.
  • My edit of 23 February 2023 adding the "missing part" to Gross's quotation (no direct participation of the Germans in the killings) was reverted by Chumchum7 on 10 March 2023 mentioning the need to maintain WP:CONS through WP:BRD. But the talk page doesn't show a consensus on Chumchum7's selective quotation: the only relevant comment is at 02:21, 25 January 2023, AdrianLot, I am concerned by the Jan T. Gross quotation at the end of paragraph 1. It is very misleading and misrepresentative of his book Neighbors, etc. My point exactly.

Evidence presented by Volunteer Marek

"Contentiousness" of the topic area

This is intended for the "other in scope" portion of the evidence.

This area is one of the "contentious topics". But the fact is that for the past year it actually has NOT been contentious. The pattern is that the topic area has been quieting down since the imposition of the 500/30 restriction by the Arbitration Committee in May 2020 and especially since that was changed to extended confirmed protection in September 2021. To be sure, there was a lag, mostly due to the fact that it took some time for Icewhiz to burn through some of his "established" socks: [197] [198] [199] [200] (and at least a dozen more). In fact, most of the disputes between mid-2020 and early 2022 involved at least one Icewhiz sock, who were showing up to pour gasoline on a diminishing fire.

Of course the relative quiet of 2021 was "punctured" by the December 2021 WCC case request. This too had heavy involvement from Icewhiz as he was emailing several individuals, including the filer. This was closed in February of 2022 and really ever since then there hasn't been much going on (this is both why all the stuff in the G&K paper is so old and also why most of the evidence being presented here is stuff that happened AFTER this paper was published and case opened).

Number of WP:AE reports by topic area, 2020
Number of WP:AE reports by topic area, 2021

One way to see this is to look at the number of Poland-related (especially Holocaust in Poland) WP:AE reports by year. This is probably as good of a metric of "contentiousness" as you're going to get.

Here is the number of AE reports by topic area in 2020 and 2021. In 2020 there were seven AE reports in this topic area, sixth highest out of all the topic areas subject of such reports. In 2021 there were only three, third lowest, ahead of only "Motorsports" and "pseudoscience".

I am not including a graph for 2022 for the simple reason that there were exactly zero AE reports in this topic area last year.

Number of WP:AE reports related to Poland (not just WW2), by year

It also helps to look at the trends over time. Here is a graph of Poland related (not just Holocaust) AE cases by year, going back to 2011. There was good bit of controversy in 2011 but this was mostly unrelated to the Holocaust (it was mostly related to the also-indef-banned User:Russavia). Between 2012 and 2017 things quieted down. It was the arrival of Icewhiz which changed things, as can be clearly seen from the graph. Icewhiz filed a record number of AE reports in very short time [201] and indeed this was one of the Findings of Fact during the 2019 case [202]

Beginning in 2022 and right up to the publication of the G&K paper, this was simply NOT a contentious area. The interventions by the Committee, as well as the work of several dedicated admins (yes, User:El_C, that does include you too) in blocking Icewhiz socks (even if sometimes with a bit too much of a delay) had done what it was suppose to. It worked.

Of course this doesn't speak to the content and it may very well be the case that several articles need some serious fixin'. But as far as conduct goes - which is what this case was labeled as being about [203] - there just hasn't been much going on in recent past.

(detailed data behind the graphs above available upon request) Volunteer Marek 06:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Volunteer Marek a link to the data so interested people could verify seems appropriate and useful. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Searching WP:ANI archives for the word "Poland" and ignoring reports which are just dealing with routine vandalism or where Poland is mentioned only in passing, in 2022 there was... zero one ANI reports related to this topic area in 2022. There were two involving Poland more generally, not about Holocaust. One of them was about the drink Kvass and the other about some small town in Poland.
By comparison, a similar search of WP:ANI archives for the word "Palestine" and ignoring similar unrelated false positives gives ten reports in that topic area (Palestine-Israel) with at least two involving Icewhiz sock suppets in some way. *That* is a contentious area. This is not.
Searching archives of WP:AN3 (3RR) yields 0 mentions of "Poland" for 2022
Searching archives of WP:AN for 2022 yields 1 mention of Poland - the January announcement that the Request for Case made in December was declined.
We have zero WP:AE reports. We have zero WP:AN3 reports. We have one WP:ANI reports. We have zero WP:AN reports. There's simply NO metric by which this topic area was "contentious" in 2022. No data is being "undercounted".
Evidence:[204]. Volunteer Marek 03:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editors driven away by harassment or attempted to be driven off

Not summarized yet. Might be summarized if it connects to future submitted evidence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:MyMoloboaccount stated that he left Wikipedia due to the harassment they were subject to because of editing this topic area. This is in addition to myself receiving death threats and rape threats against my children [205] and Piotrus being blackmailed in order to explicitly drive them away from this topic area [206]. The harassment of myself has been confirmed by ArbCom and the harassment of Piotrus has been confirmed by both the ArbCom and Trust & Safety.

MyMoloboaccount's last comment involve a claim that as a result of the harassment they have suffered a stroke and their health deteriorated [207], the desperate plea for their family to be left alone [208], repeated several times "STOP HARASSING ME. YOU RUINED MY LIFE.LEAVE ME AND MY FAMILY ALONE. DELETE MY ACCOUNT. LEAVE ME ALONE." [209] [210] [211] [212], more desperate requests to have their Wikipedia page deleted [213] with an edit summary " I PROMISE NEVER TO WRITE ANYTHING ON WIKIPEDIA AGAIN. I won't be writing anything again. I promise. Please leave me alone." and again and again

Given the kind of harassment I have experience myself, I find MyMoloboaccount's desperate claims credible. To put it simply, Icewhiz (and whatever associates he has) succeeded with them in what they have so far failed with me.

Unlike some of the other users who claim they have been "driven away" from this topic area, yet still continue to edit it to this day (including participating in battleground behavior like filing WP:AE reports and edit warring), or those who actually never edited it in the first place, MyMoloboaccount's claim is credible because AFAICT they actually DID leave Wikipedia for good.

User:Poeticbent has also been driven off by years of some extremely vile harassment, some of it going back to 2011 but that's old news, they're not here and I'm not sure if it's right to revisit it in their absence.

Focusing on spurious and self serving claims of having been driven away (by editors who actually continue to edit) while ignoring the tremendous amount of abuse and grief that some other users have been subject to is, to say the least, fundamentally warped. Volunteer Marek 02:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gitz6666 has made himself a party to this case and should be added as such

  • User:Gitz6666 has submitted evidence involving a very recent (post dating therequest to open this case) dispute between them and myself [214]. They claim that commenting that someone is doing WP:OR is "tendentious and uncivil". It is not. Characterizing regular Wikipedia discussion of content in such terms is itself evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach.
  • More importantly this occurred in a very specific context. Before February 15, 2023 Gitz6666 had made ZERO edits to this topic [215]. That means that over 7 years (account registered in 2015), or even 4 if we only count since 2019, Gitz6666 showed absolutely no interest in this particular topic. Yet all of sudden, beginning with the opening of the request for this case (February 13), they began editing this area intensively, and then began participating extensively in the case itself.
    • Just before they decided to become involved in this topic, on January 15, Gitz6666 received an indefinite topic ban [216] from the topic of Russo-Ukrainian war. It followed this ANI discussion [217] and was imposed as a discretionary sanction by User:Callanecc
    • This topic ban was the end result of almost a year-long pattern of disruptive editing in this topic area combined with a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach which involved disputes - and the refusal to resolve them in a collegial manner - with me. The disagreements also involved User:Elinruby.
    • Over the course of this dispute Gitz6666 filed a report against me at ANI (which almost boomeranged at him) [218] and made frequent personal attacks against me:
      • "he is openly an anti-Russian POV-pusher and always has been"
      • "VM (...) is the most blatant and disruptive POV-pusher I've ever encountered"
        • Note that the same diff includes a blatantly false allegation against me: "They (VM) even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture" (I never said or did anything like that and Gitz6666 knows that very well)
      • "you're a POV pusher"
      • "you have accused everyone of being pro-Russian propagandists" (note: of course I did no such thing)
        • There are many more examples but since they happened in a different topic area I am only including enough to show the nature of his participation on Wikipedia and his approach to disagreements (compare their blatant and explicit personal attacks against me, with my statement that they're "doing original research", which Gitz6666 claims was "uncivil" - rules for thee but not for me I guess).
        • These examples also clearly show that Gitz6666 had a particular problem with ME in particular. It is also very clear that Gitz6666 blames me for their topic ban (even though their actions in this topic area was criticized by over a dozen uninvolved editors, going as far back as June 2022)
    • Over the course of this dispute in Russo-Ukrainian topic area Gitz6666 would follow me to article they never edited only to spread the dispute across multiple articles [219] (no previous edits to talk or article) (me observing that they're engaging in WP:STALKing behavior) even outside the topic area [220] (Gitz voting in a survey on an article they never edited before right after I did) [221] (Gitz reverting me to start an edit war on an article they never edited)
      • (Placeholder - other examples)
    • When Gitz6666 began involving themselves in this topic area I raised my concern at their talk page [222]:
      • "Gitz6666, since you've now chosen to start editing articles in the topic area of Poland and the Holocaust (...), and since you had never edited this topic area before, I feel compelled to comment. (...) Let me express my primary concern right at the outset. It is definitely eye-brow raising that you would choose to appear in this topic area immediately after you were topic banned in another topic area, in good part because of the disputes between me and you. This is especially concerning given that I've noted before that you have a tendency to follow me around (stalk) and appear out of the blue on articles I'm involved in. Before this you were doing this across different articles within the same topic area (Russia-Ukraine) now that you got a topic ban there, it involves skipping across topic areas.
    • I then went on to explicitly assume good faith, compliment Gitz6666 for some of their work and expressed the hope that they their new found interest in this new (for them) topic area was genuinely motivated by desire to improve Wikipedia.

Unfortunately Gitz6666 subsequent conduct has confirmed my initial fears, as much as I wanted to believe otherwise. They both have started disputes with me on articles in this topic (I walked away from these as soon as I could), made accusations against me and appear to be going through old disputes I was involved in and re-inserting and re-igniting these. Given this context it is hard to avoid the impression that Gitz6666 came over to this topic area to pursue a grudge and try to "get back" at me for their topic ban in another topic area. The LAST thing this topic area needs is users who not only bring their WP:BATTLEGROUND approach in from other topic area, but who choose to participate in this topic area simply with the intention of griefing others.

While obviously we don't sanction users for their conduct on other Wikipedias, I do think it is relevant that Gitz6666's behavior was likewise found to be problematic on both the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias and was blocked indefinetly on both for pretty much this type of behavior.

For this reason at very least Gitz6666 should be added as a party to this case for carrying over disputes from other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 03:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Volunteer Marek:: while summarizing this no diffs were given to support the idea that they had clashed with Elinruby. If you feel that is important to show, please feel free to add new evidence demonstrating that. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Barkeep49, re: clashes with User:Elinruby - that is really another section all to itself. Just some instances: [223] (note this is Gitz6666's section heading, it was renamed by uninvolved editor to "Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666"), [224] ("sealioning" is a reference to Gitz6666's behavior), rest of the exchange in same thread: [225][226] [227] [228] [229] and this one [230] (ELinruby notices Gitz6666's tendency to claim to have "demonstrated" or "proved" something when they really haven't - they do that in their evidence here as well). Another thread [231] [232] [233] and here a pretty good description of Gitz6666's editing behavior. And then [234] Also on user talk pages [235] [236] There's a bunch more but for sake of space and not over-diff'in I'll just link to some of the interaction tool pages: [237] [238] [239] [240]

I do want to stress here that Elinruby's comments and views in these discussion are very much inline what many other (uninvolved) users said (can list if needed), hence the topic ban for Gitz6666 in the end. Volunteer Marek 17:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gitz6666 has taken upon themselves to restart old disputes

Not summarised yet. See /Analysis for more.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Now, Gitz6666 has decided to pour through my very old edits, apparently going back all the way to 2009 (see bottom of this version) and go and revert either my old edits or re-open old disputes I was involved in. With complete lack of self awareness, in the same page where they're pulling diffs of my edits from... 2009 they claim, unironically as best as I can tell, that "I've never wikihounded VM". Right. That's why they're digging out edits from 2009 and attempting to restart old disputes like here (note the false edit summary: the consensus was reached on that article with these comments (pleaseread them in order) [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] on June 19 2021. In fact Z1720 did awesome work here and mediated a reasonable compromise (include one part of source but not another because it didn't specifically refer to the localities of Dęblin and Irena) and this is actually how collaborative dispute resolution is supposed to work. Whatever they're doing now, they deserve a barnstar. Yet Gitz6666 thought it ok to come back to this article after two years and restore the version that was the subject of controversy. Why? It appears simply to be more of the "I'm going to get you back for the topic ban I got from Ukraine-Russia topic area" vendetta edits.

I plan on editing other examples to this list. Volunteer Marek 04:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add: in this comment [248] Gitz6666 claims I think that it is fair to say that VM and I had no serious conflict in the HiP topic area. This despite the fact that they've been going through my really old edits, making reverts and trying their best to restart very old disputes going back to at least 2018 if not 2009. The above is just one - but very illustrative - example. The reason we have not had "serious conflict in the HiP topic area" is simply because I have been ignoring these actions from them. Just because we have had no serious conflicts, doesn't mean that Gitz6666 isn't trying to currently start such conflicts (honestly it'd be best to nip it in the bud with a preventive sanction even while a case is ongoing).

IF *I* all of sudden started going through Gitz6666's edits from 2017 or 2018 or whatever and reverting them, while this case was ongoing and while I was presenting case against them, I would most certainly expect to be sanctioned (blocks supposed to be preventive etc.) - but of course I'm not the one doing that. Volunteer Marek 05:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ealdgyth's 2022 attempt to improve Holocaust in Poland article

At the end of the fiasco of that 2021 case request by User:Jehochman, User:Ealdgyth drew up a list "problems and errors" in the article on Holocaust in Poland and invited the editors involved in this topic area to work to resolve them here.

This was exactly the kind of initiative that I think was needed.

Unfortunately, I was the ONLY person to step up and try to work on the problems highlighted by Ealdgyth (see my edits to the article in Jan ’22, this one, through this one, which was really the last time I made extensive edits to this topic area). There’s always a lot of screaming and yelling about how many problems there supposedly are in this topic area, but nobody seemed interested in actually fixing them. The only other editors involved were User:My very best wishes who asked some questions on the talk, and User:François Robere who showed up posting some stuff about Poeticbent or something [249] and, in my view, attempted to turn this effort into another bickerin' battleground (although they seemed to have changed their mind and undid their post) [250]. I should also say that even though I expected this kind of response from FR, I was also deeply disappointed that no other "Polish" editors tried to help out with these very real problems.

But I can understand why nobody else stepped up. I spent about 2 weeks on the article and managed to address maybe half a dozen issues (out of 41). Fixing these things also required acquiring particular works and books, which I spent my own money on (another one I ordered through Interlibrary Loan but it took awhile to arrive). So lots of time and some money. For basically no reward. Maybe even negative reward, since the whole time I worked on it I was extremely conscious of the fact that any edit I made could potentially be used against me at some point by someone with an axe to grind, who would misrepresent or twist it. Indeed, the G&K paper and some of the evidence being presented here is exactly of that nature. When you edit this topic area you get extremely paranoid because you know some people are saving every single diffs for possible future use against you, that every thing you do will be interpreted not just in bad faith but the-worst-possible-faith, and that's not even getting into the Icewhiz harassment.

My disappointment in lack of effort by anyone else (except of course Ealdgyth), especially the people who are always running around screaming about how faulty this topic area is, is a big part of what led me to pretty much abandon this topic area in 2022. Volunteer Marek 08:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed IBAN with FR as result of Callanecc's civility restriction

This is an addition/elaboration on evidence presented by User:Callanecc [251]

Since the imposition of this restriction the only person who has accused me of violating it is User:François Robere. Significantly, FR made the accusation [252] regarding edits to a different topic area, which did not involve them. This is pretty clear evidence that FR was Wiki-stalking my edits looking for something to get me in trouble with, even after I stopped editing in the Holocaust in Poland topic area.

When I responded to FR's accusations on Callanecc's talk page [253] and explicitly stated I have no intention of interacting with FR [254], Francois Robere actually claimed that me responding to his accusations was evidence that I was "following him" [255] ... ... ... because I responded to his accusations against ME, on another user's talk page.

This was so over top absurd that I asked for a two way IBAN with FR [256]. I even asked FR if he was ok with an IBAN, since they were claiming that I was following them (rather than vice versa - reminder: they were complaining about my comments at articles they didn't even edit!) [257]

Callenecc then responded by analyzing FR's "diffs" [258]. They said one of the comments could be seen as a breach (I struck the comment per the wording of the restriction [259]).

More importantly they also pointed out to FR that, well, obviously, I came to their talk page to respond and if I hadn't, Callanecc was going to ping me anyway.

Callanecc also stated that they were considering an IBAN on FR even before they read my suggestion of the same.

FR then quickly posted refusing the two way IBAN, falsely claiming that only evidence of him following me around was stale [260] (completely untrue - I mean, kind of hilariously, the very fact FR was posting diffs of my edits from articles they didn't edit or weren't involved in was itself evidence of their following me)

The fact that *I* proposed a 2 way I ban while FR rejected it is pretty clear indication of who is following who around Wikipedia. I want nothing to do with FR. They want to be able to stalk my edits. FR already has an interaction ban with GizzyCatBella and has admitted in the past to watching User:Mymoloboaccount's contributions [261] (last sentence in diff) and following them around (they were almost indef blocked for this by User:RexxS [262]. This is relevant in light of my evidence on how Mymoloboaccount left Wikipedia [263]. Stalking and trying to "police" "Polish editors" is a long running pattern with Francois Robere, going back to 2018.

Callanecc then said [264] that they'll wait to see if the ArbCom takes the (present) case. I am interpreting this to basically be saying that IF the ArbCom had not taken this case, Callanecc was going to proceed with the 2 way IBAN.

Bottomline: an IBAN with Francois Robere is a good idea. They are clearly following me around (as they did with GCB and Mymoloboaccount previously - those instances they admitted but I guess they figured out by now that that's not a good look) and they are accusing me of following them around (I'm not). You can make the IBAN 2 way if you want to though, I have no desire to interact with them.

User:Callanecc - if I misrepresented anything in this section please let me know. This is my understanding of the incident and if I got something wrong, it's not intentional.

Volunteer Marek 23:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've pretty much stopped editing in this topic area

The request for Arbitration filed by Jehochman in 2021 was closed in January of 2022 [265].Since February 1 2022 up until February 1 2023 I made a total of 4729 edits to Wikipedia. This includes minor edits, reversions of vandalism, etc., everything (4181 edits between Feb 1 2022 and Dec 30 2022 and another 548 in January 2023) [266]

Out of these 4729 edits during the past year (dating from Feb 1) fifty one (51) were in the topic area of Holocaust in Poland. That's 1.08% of my edits during this time period

Of these 4729 edits during that year forty eight (48) were related to World War 2 in Poland but NOT the Holocaust in Poland . That's 1.01% of my edits during this time period

97.9% of my edits during that year were to OTHER topics.

Of the 51 edits in this topic area I made in that year, 38 were in regard to controversy on the Jan Karski article with a strange account which made some strange statements (about "spies on Wikipedia" and how a source was available from their "friend"). 5 of them were reversions of obvious socks (not Icewhiz, User:English Patriot Man/User:Janj9088 [267] [268]) or minor edits or reverting vandalism. Other than the Karski edits and these 5, I made only 8 edits, out of 4729 to this topic area (roughly one-fifth-of-one-percent, or .0017) during this time.

I have pretty much abandoned this topic area. For two reasons. First, there was much less socking by Icewhiz during this period, the 500/30 restriction having done its job. Second, just plain burn out. Just getting sick of all the controversies and bad faith and knowing that every edit you make is saved by someone as a diff to be used and twisted against you. Ultimately, why bother?

Yes, subsequent to the publication of the G&K paper (Feb 10?) several controversies in this topic area were restarted. And yes, I did comment and edit some articles in relation to some of them. Even there I really tried to restrict myself to cases where somebody was getting something really wrong or where I thought my comments would be particularly helpful. I also want to acknowledge (yes I'm being defensive, pre-emptive and paranoid) before somebody accuses me of bad faith that in January of 2022 I also made other edits to this topic area. This was basically the "tail end" or "wrap up" if you'd like of the 2021 WCC case request. Again, above numbers are for Feb 2022 to Feb 2023.

List of all my edits is available through my editing history but I can send a spread sheet of all of them which breaks it down by topic area on request. Volunteer Marek 06:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My responses on substack

Not summarised for now. This should probably be used as analysis of presented evidence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would like to enter into evidence some of my responses to G&K paper I made into substack, while noting explicitly that those posts were NOT written for Wikipedians but rather more for an outside audience. That means that a good portion of what I wrote there is old news around these parts or things which are obvious to Wikipedians (like what WP:BLP or WP:DENY are).

Here is my main response to G&K. I may try - time permitting - to enter some of this info into evidence independently but if that does not happen I wish to especially emphasize the section "Collective Responsibility (paragraphs 10 - 30)" of this post, including the graphs and the sub-sections.

Here is the second part of main response. Similarly, if I do not have time to enter this info independently, I wish to bring special attention to the table illustrating the extensive overlap between the texts in the paper and Icewhiz's old complaints; almost everything in the second part of the section was previously posted by Icewhiz in either WP:AE requests or as part of the 2019 case. Some of the wording in G&K paper is what we would call on Wikipedia a "close paraphrase" of what Icewhiz wrote previously. The sources used by G&K were often first used by Icewhiz on Wikipedia. The controversies that ensued post Icewhiz's 2019 ban involved his sock puppets.

Third part addresses some specific accusations made by G&K against me [269]. Some of this has been referenced in various evidences in this case and I hope to provide elaboration in subsequent phases of this case. Volunteer Marek 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jan Zaryn article

Disclaimer: WP:BLP applies even to people one doesn't like or agree with. I am completely opposed to Zaryn's views but that doesn't mean that we should use Wikipedia as a vehicle for attacks on living subjects. See my comment here: [270]

Relationship to G&K paper

Not summarised for now; slightly out-of-scope as it is regarding the paper and the author's critiques of on-wiki activity
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The controversy on Jan Żaryn article is discussed in the G&K paper. The image below shows text in G&K (V2) and the text from Wikipedia talk page (V1), a proposed "draft" by Francois Robere [271]. The two text are identical in content except the order of sentences is changed. On Wikipedia we would call that "close paraphrasing". At minimum.

Zaryn who wrote that.png

It's true that both text include quotations but then why did the authors chose to include exactly same quotes from an interview as FR? I'll let people draw their own conclusions why these two texts are almost identical.

FR's "draft" was added to the article for them by yet another sock puppet [272] on June 3rd [273], without consensus while discussion was still ongoing.

The sock puppet account also started an RfC "on François Robere's second proposal" [274] which quickly saw a bunch of other new accounts.


  • The article was started by Piotrus [275] on May 30 2019. G&K complain that this version didn't include any substantial criticisms of Zaryn's views.
  • G&K claim that "In April 2021, in an attempt to fix this, an editor called Mhorg added (...) the fact that Polish newspapers described his statements as nationalist, antisemitic, and chauvinistic"

It is completely false that "Polish newspapers described his statements as (...) antisemitic, and chauvinistic".

This however was indeed what Mhorg, Francois Robere and a slew of sock puppets wanted to add to the article. G&K as well as these editors want Wikipedia to violate our own WP:BLP policy by including falsely-sourced attacks into articles on historians they do not like.

Mhorg's BLP vio

Initial timeline

  • April 2021 Mhorg adds text to the article which accuses Zaryn of making statements that "were recognized" as “nationalist, anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false” by journalists of Gazeta Wyborcza, Polityka and [276]
    • Note the weird phrasing ("statements were recognized as" ???) is an immediate WP:REDFLAG.NONE of these sources call him or his statements “anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false”. These words don't even occur in some of the sources. Oko Press – not mentioned in Mhorg’s text and probably not reliable (*) – calls him nationalist. I guess it's possible to infer these things from Zaryn quotes but that would be WP:OR and none of the sources call him that. This is a BLP.
  • I removed this text [277]. Over the next two months, Mhorg, an account named Trasz [278] (blind revert, no explanation) (**), and several sock puppets (***) which showed up to this article kept restoring the text despite the fact that it was pointed out on talk several times the sources did not support the text.
  • Mhorg canvassed FR on their talk to come to this article [279]. Mhorg has also done it with Gitz6666 recently [280]. Basically, when Mhorg gets in a disagreement they go and find someone that has a history with whoever is disagreeing with them and canvasses them.
  • FR began editing the article and talk page only after Mhorg had left that message on their talk
  • Initially FR acknowledged that Mhorg's text was NOT supported by sources and involved WP:OR [281] [282] [283] and tried to explain this to Mhorg. So far so good.

Discussion takes strange turn

  • But then on talk, FR kept trying to argue about reliability of these sources – which except for Oko press – wasn’t even disputed. Rather the fact that the sources were misrepresented was the issue. This strawman-tactic is quite common in this topic: "sources are being misrepresented" - "but they're reliable!" - "what does that have to do with anything?" - "take it to RSN!" etc.
  • When sock puppet accounts tried to restore this content FR said on talk they (sock puppet) were doing “good work” and said my removals of the BLP vio were not justified [284] despite acknowledging previously that sources didn’t support this text

Stonewalling and discussing in bad faith by Francois Robere

The exchange that followed was a bit bizarre, where FR accused me of removing sources which were never actually in the article in the first place and kept insisting that the text they previously acknowledged was problematic was in fact "well sourced". It looked to me at the time like they were simply "running interference" for the socks, so that they could add the BLPVIO attack to the article (these socks and other accounts were violating 500/30 btw) while they attempted to provide flimsy justifications for it on talk.

  • I pointed out again to FR that the text wasn’t supported [285]
  • FR said that some of the sources do call him “nationalist” and accuses me of not having read the sources, which is just plain absurd since we've been discussing this for a month.[286]
  • I said that the “nationalist” label isn’t a problem, it’s the "anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false" that’s not in sources (and FR already knows this given their previous acknowledgement) and that we already went over this [287] [288]
  • FR, bizarrely claimed this is new text not the old one. Apparently this is because one of the sources was swapped out for Newsweek (also not RS). Text is same though. (diff above)
  • I pointed out again that regardless, the problem is with text being not supported by sources (diff above)
  • FR responded with a personal attack, accusing me of again of not having read the sources, and claimed the text is “well sourced” [289] despite their previous acknowledgement that it actually wasn't (see above)
  • I asked them to address the issue rather than make personal attacks and ask for sources AGAIN [290]
  • FR replied that they'll only address the issue if I take back the accusation of canvassing against Mhorg I had made A MONTH EARLIER.[291] This is clear cut evidence of WP:STONEWALLING, deflecting, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and just plain "whataboutism"
  • FR finally responds to my request with text from sources which doesn't support Wikipedia text and by basically going all in on the "text is well sourced" [292] argument even though previously they acknowledged it wasn't
  • Discussion then is somewhat derailed by provocative comments from one of the sock puppet accounts
  • I respond to FR [293] saying again that it's the same text as previously, that yes I have read the sources

The next part is especially illustrative:

  • FR changed subjects in middle of discussion claiming that Zaryn said controversial things [294]. This claim was made with no sources provided.
  • I said ok, which sources say that [295]
  • FR says “in sources you deleted” [296] (wha??) and that they have already been "quoted elsewhere" (no they haven't)
  • I say ok, which ones? [297]
  • FR says “Korycki" [298].

… … …

Here’s the thing. Korycki was NEVER added to the article in the first place. It would have been impossible for me to remove them even IF I wanted to.

FR then provides 7 diffs which DO NOT show me removing anything about Korycki. This is a tactic where a user pretends that the quantity of diffs makes up for the fact that none of the diffs show anything like what they claim they show. For another example of this tactic see this summary by User:Barkeep49 of evidence where they note "François Robere replied with 12 diffs" - none of which show what FR claims) Also accuses me again of not having read the sources (which were never added to the article) and makes some WP:OR

Keep in mind that initially FR acknowledged that the text was NOT supported by sources but by now they've done a 180.

  • I point this out and tell FR that’s not the text we’re discussing and ask him to stop saying that I haven't read the sources [299]
  • FR responds with non-sequitur meaningless "So are we clear now on what the sources say?" [300] acting as if they had just won some argument rather than made a bunch of false accusations and misrepresentations
  • I say, no I'm actually confused because you're claiming I removed sources which were never in the article [301]
  • FR responds with a general accusation that I've been "disputing" stuff and "deleting" text (yes, the text unsupported by sources)

FR also split up the discussion on talk in weird ways so some of it is hard to follow. They also claimed that my point that the article was being turned into an attack page was now "moot" [302] because... more problematic text was added in addition to what Mhorg/sockpuppets tried to add. The falsely sourced info was still in the article. Then they tried to WP:WIKILAWYER what “unsupported” means (it means "it's not in the source", come on) [303].

FR also removed info per IJUSTDONTLIKEIT which WAS reliably sourced (Yad Vashem) from the article [304] because it made the subject look good (Zaryn's parents are Righteous Among Nations who rescued Jews during WW2). They also made blind reverts of my partial reverts of Szmenderowiecki's HUGE additions made without discussion or consensus [305](***)

Post script: Likely Icewhiz sock puppets showed up few months later and tried to give it another go [306] [307] [308]


(*) Reliability of oko press – you can look at this RSN discussion mentioned before [309]... but some of the !votes in it are Icewhiz sock puppets and the sock puppet who started it tried to "pair" GW (reliable) together with Oko (not so much) to sneak the second one through

(**) On June 2 account Trasz showed up out of nowhere and went on a revert spree – they reverted several of my edits on various articles that were months old, reverted old edits by GCB on other articles and reverted an edit by Piotrus [310][311][312][313][314][315]. The fact that on a single day Trasz decided to target old edits by these three users is/was strange and at the time I was suspicious - and still am - that they were asked by "someone" to do so. Here Trasz made a single comment on talk consisting of a personal attack [316], talking as if they knew me.

(***) The accounts were V.A.Obadiah and Nulliq. At the time both were in violation of 500/30. VA Obadiah had 14 edits, Nulliq 15. Each made a single IJUSTLIKEIT comment on talk [317][318]. Nulliq also went and reverted me on SAME other articles as Trasz [319], also quite strange as it was brand new account.

(****) On June 7th and 10th Szmenderowiecki (at the time also violating 500/30) dropped a huge amount of text (35k [320] and 27k [321]) into the article without discussion or consensus. Some of it was actually an improvement on Mhorg’s wording but it introduced other problems. FR edit warred to keep Szmender’s text “as is” without any revisions, BLP vios and all [322]. This is discussed in other's evidence so I don't go into it.

At the time I genuinely felt like FR was just messing with me and, with help from several socks and new accounts, was trying to simply create controversy for sake of controversy in order so that a WP:AE report or similar could be generated. All they and Mhorg had to do is simply rewrite the text so that it actually reflected the sources without inventing stuff. Zaryn's quotes would have probably been damning enough in and of themselves. Volunteer Marek 21:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IBAN with User:Levivich

On March 13 2023 User:ScottishFinnishRadish imposed an interaction ban between Levivich and myself: [323] [324]. The IBAN appears to have been prompted by this personal attack that Levivich made in a discussion concerning the Signpost article: [325]. I'll quote it in full because, with one exception, I've never seen an established editor make a personal attack that is that insulting and offensive. Brand new users, throwaway accounts? Yes. Established editors no.

I legit pity you for being unable to admit the "Jewish welcome banner" caption was shocking, upsetting, and hurtful Holocaust distortion. You must have so much hate and pride in your heart that you seem unable to spare even a drop of empathy.

I gave Levivich a chance to strike the comment [326], which he did two hours later [327].

Levivich's comment was a follow up on their accusation that I was "defending Poeticbent's welcome banner hoax". This is/was completely false as was the accusation that I was "unable to admit" anything. Rather, I was just pointing out that the 2019 Arbitration Committee found that Poeticbent's false (and it was false) caption was an "apparent error" rather than a "deliberate hoax" [328] as initially Icewhiz, and then Levivich kept on insisting on Wikipedia. This means that Levivich's comment was also an indirect personal attack against all the Arbitrators on the 2019 committee who voted for that FoF.

I could and was thinking about posting more evidence regarding Levivich's behavior in this topic area but this seems pointless if indeed they decided to retire [329]. However, since sometimes these retirements are temporary I think the Committee should take this IBAN and make it permanent (SFR's sanction has the proviso that "This sanction will expire at the resolution of the Arbcom case"). Volunteer Marek 20:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Nihil novi

Ealdgyth mis-characterized a diff

Evidence not yet summarised; original concern not carried over to the /Summary but will be added if it does tie to future evidence/analysis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Discussing an assertion by author Richard C. Lukas, Ealdgyth writes that Lukas' information had been unjustifiably "added [to the article] with Special:Diff/826962453 in 2018 by Nihil novi (talk · contribs)". Inspection shows that my entry (of 22 February 2018) had not at all involved the adding of information, Lukas' or anyone else's, but simply copyediting to improve the passage's English usage. Nihil novi (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grabowski and Klein imply that I distort the history of the Holocaust

Evidence not yet summarised, may tie in to future evidence if counter-examples of negative editing are required
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's disconcerting to find myself named in the paper, "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust", by Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein (aka Chapmansh on Wikipedia). Being no Holocaust expert, I have limited myself in this subject matter to copyediting articles for clarity and English usage and to translating texts, especially from Polish and Latin, into English.

For example, in the "Paradisus Judaeorum" article, the original English renderings of the Latin of the 5 versions (from the years 1606, 1664, 1672, 1685, and 1708-09, the first being the longest) of the pasquinade "The Kingdom of Poland Is..." ("Regnum Polonorum est..."), listing shortcomings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the situation of the Jews being but one of 19 in the first version), were so bad that I retranslated their Latin into English: on 17 March 2020 (at 10:24, 11:26, 22:04, 22:19, and 22:46) and on 18 March 2020 (at 5:55, 8:42, 9:21, and 9:23). I also, on various dates, copyedited the article's English text.

I have been polite in my exchanges with fellow editors and have endeavored to keep an open mind on contentious questions (I can say the same of other editors, especially Piotrus).

Evidence presented by K.e.coffman


Presenting some earlier diffs to show that the issues continue since the imposition/lifting of the topic ban.

Competence to edit in the topic area

  • My first impression of GizzyCatBella’s editing (GCB for short) was from a 2018 discussion about the author “Mark Paul” at the Talk page of Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. In response to another editor, I provided a quote from Paul’s ‘’Polish-Jewish Relations in Soviet-Occupied Eastern Poland, 1939–1941’’: "Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military, constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939-1945." (p. 10) [330]. (The Paul source itself can be found here: [331], hosted by the right-wing Canadian Polish Congress).
One can reasonably interpret Paul’s claims that Jews, while in the Soviet occupation zone, somehow managed to collaborate with Nazi Germany (!) as an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Yet, having read this, GCB responded with: "I strongly disagree with you, oppose reverting" immediately below: [332]. GCB vigorously defended this fringe author with no known credentials, as: “YES absolutely yes, Mark-Paul is one of the greatest Polish-Canadian historian dedicated to this particular topic, accepted by virtually every relevant gate of interest.” [333]. I asked GCB about Paul’s credentials, to which GCB responded: “Some think he is a monk. IDK but his work is really detailed and cited by many historians.” permalink. I then laid out Paul's antisemitic thesis to GCB on their Talk page in more detail: Paul's thesis, including that it were Jews, according to Paul, who "played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting ...". GCB did not respond. That GCB would consider such an individual as "the greatest" historian of the Polish-Jewish relations during WWII was quite concerning to me.
  • Also in 2018: GCB treating a major Polish-American historian, Jan T. Gross, as ‘controversial’ while suggesting that “Jewish historians do not represent ‘the rest of the World’ ” [334]. And: “we both know that Gross and Grabowski are considered the most dubious historians in Poland, probed and rejected by virtually everyone” [335]. Further: “...Gross is fringe not M.Paul” [336]. Putting this into ethno-religious terms and assessing historians’ expertise based on how they are received in Poland made me question GCB’s suitability for the topic area.
  • 2020: See my statement at GCB’s first (unsuccessful) appeal of their topic ban: Statement by K.e.coffman, especially where I highlighted this erroneous removal:
In this edit in January 2020, GCB modified the sentence to remove the last part, giving a rationale of "removing unsourced content":

While the publication was heavily antisemitic and opposed to presence of Jews in Poland, at the same time it supported alliance with Zionist movement and creation of Jewish state in Palestine, to create an emigration destination for Polish Jews.

The subsequent discussion at AE (see: GCB: I still don't see it, in re: the antisemitic periodical.) suggested to me that GCB was unable to properly use sources. See more examples in my AE statement linked above, such as listing bogus sources in an GCB-created article on the Jewish officer of the Soviet secret police.
  • In a recent discussion at Naliboki massacre, CGB's February 2021 edit caught my attention due to its selective, if not manipulative, nature: [337]. Under the guise of APL source requirements, GCB removed the unflattering information, while keeping the narrative that Jews were involved intact. GCB retained this material:
In May 2003, prosecutor Anna Gałkiewicz from IPN's Commission (...) reported that surviving eyewitnesses from Naliboki recognized Jews who had previously been in the Bielski partisans participating in the attack.[1]
The ref was replaced with a “better source needed” tag, while the text stayed in. Contrast this with with the information on the antisemitic undertones of the claims buttressing the Jewish involvement, cited to NPR, being removed in its entirety:
Polish journalist Piotr Głuchowski [pl] said witnesses mentioning the Bielskis were merely "parroting what they had read in a book by an avowed anti-Semite".[2]


  1. ^ Bielski brothers were heroes, says survivor, Telegraph, David Harrison, 10 Jan 2009
  2. ^ Jewish Brothers' Resistance Inspired 'Defiance', NPR, 27 December 2008
  • July 2022: with the edit summary “WP:UNDUE and general clean up”, GCB removed almost all material about the fate of Jews in a Polish town, including the participation of the local gentiles in their persecution, cited to Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945: [338]. The only sentence that remained was: “No more than 10 Jews from Rajgród survived the war.” and even that was truncated from “Local Polish authorities turned in some Jews who remained in hiding around Rajgród. No more than 10 Jews from Rajgród survived the war.” So the entire Jewish community disappeared, but how it happened is a mystery.
  • February 20233: RSN discussion about Blue Police and whether the Polish policemen were subject to death penalty for not answering the conscription call from the German occupation authorities. As an argument for “yes”, GCB included a 1939 poster File:Odezwa do urzędników Policji Polskiej 1939.jpg and asked: “translated Polish--> najsurowsze kary = English --> the severest punishments. What were the severest punishments back in 1939?” [339]. GCB not only invited editors to conduct OR based on a primary source, but argued that “severest punishments” = “death penalty”. When others were not convinced, GCB rhetorically asked: “Do you still have doubts what that source says? [340] (emphasis in the original throughout).

Using BLP as a cudgel

  • July 2021: GCB inappropriately used WP:BLP, while also misunderstanding how WP:RS and WP:OR work. GCB was commenting on this edit [341], with my edit summary: Tomasz Sommer is not a reliable source in this topic area; same applies to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. I asked GCB to establish Chodakiewicz as a reputable historian; GCB’s response was: “Look, you can't declare someone unreliable based on your WP:OR, you know that I hope. You know the procedures also, I believe. So begin there. Here is WP:BLP.” I quoted from WP:SOURCEDEF, yet GCB was undeterred, asking: “.. and based on the above, you declaring a historian unreliable? … you are standing behind your source removal, correct?” Source: User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2021/July#Question.
  • February 2023: GCB using BLP again, with the same style of asking questions: “And - are you aware that WP:BLP apply to talk pages also?” [342].

Sidetracking discussions

  • February 2023: GCB joined an RSN discussion about the dubious Glaukopis journal to bring up the specter of Icewhiz: “Icewhiz's intent was to make Glaukopis unrealible for Wikipiedia. That's what Icewhiz always wanted, because scholars who publish in Glaukopis don't accommodate Icewhiz's POV.” [343]. The point of the RSN discussion was to evaluate the source on its own merits, which GCB seemed to miss.
  • Yet on 11 March, after I removed a statement that looked problematic to me in German retribution against Poles who helped Jews, GCB brought up Icewhiz again apparently suggesting that my edit should be examined by Arbcom: “the fact that this has been attempted to be deleted and removed by Icewhiz already (...) is worth noting (for the record) due to the upcoming ArbCom case” [344]. When I questioned this approach of using an article Talk page in this way, GCB doubled down: people should be “aware of the banned user's involvement in the removal of it and have ArbCom (they will look at the editing history of all involved users) be aware of it also” [345].

Substance-free contributions

  • In discussions, GCB often presents evidence-free statements aligning with whoever seems (to GCB) to be supportive of their position, such as, in February 2023: “I agree with Zero, the source is reliable and due because it is a review of a book in question. It makes common sense to summarize the author's views in an article on that book.” [346], even though Zero000 said nothing about the source being “due”. In fact, they said (up thread): “So RS is not a valid reason for exclusion, which leaves only the question of whether this reviewer's opinion satisfies WEIGHT.” As an aside, GCB’s argument that the source is due simply "because it is a review of a book in question" is nonsensical.
  • There are also various rationale-free statements such as "I strongly disagree with you, oppose reverting" May 2018; “I disagree with you.February 2023; “I disagree with you, K.e.coffman” February 2023, etc.

Battleground mentality

  • GCB encouraged another editor, fairly new to the topic area, to file a case at AE, after this editor opened (a misguided, IMO) discussion at ANI. This editor’s chief complaint appeared to be “my voice was ignored, and all of my edits were removed” [347] – a content dispute. Yet GCB jumped in to post their guidance multiple times [348] [349] [350], ending with specific instructions & suggesting that a 3rd party editor be added to the Arbcom case: “Close this with a note that you are moving it to AE. … (by the way ArbCom TB should be added to the case, I’ll touch more on it later)” . [351] (underline in the original). I interpreted this as piggybacking on a dispute that did not involve them but where GCB potentially had a score to settle.


I understand that there is a language barrier, which I sympathize with, but I believe that GizzyCatBella is a net negative in the topic area, whose positive contributions, mostly consisting of reporting suspected socks, do not outweigh the negative ones. They include: biased editing; failure to properly use sources; and disruptive contributions to discussions. This crosses into the territory of general inability to productively and neutrally contribute to article development. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by GhostOfDanGurney

GizzyCatBella POV pushing & procedure issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi monuments in Canada

(For background, I don't dive into this topic area often; I have Deletion sorting/Canada on my watchlist, which is how I became aware of the below AfD).

  • My only real interaction with any of the listed parties came in November of 2022 when GizzyCatBella requested speedy deletion ([352]) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi monuments in Canada after invoking the extended-confirmed restriction for Antisemitism in Poland ([353] [354]), and WP:LAWYERing to have the discussion closed on those grounds ([355] The monuments to members of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) and Roman Shukhevych are related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45). (🤷‍♀️)) because the nominator wasn't EC (and got blocked during the discussion), despite an endorsement of the nomination ([356], [357]) and numerous delete !votes by EC users.
  • GCB was a very active participant in the discussion prior to requesting speedy deletion, !voting to keep the article ([358]), which at the time of nomination only consisted of Ukrainian examples ([359]). Her sources posted in the discussion focus exclusively on Ukrainian atrocities and nationalist movements ([360] [361] [362] [363] [364] [365]).
  • GCB has by far the most edits in the discussion [366] which led to me warning her of WP:BLUDGEONing ([367]) and was replied to with the usual snark she employed in the discussion ([368]). She also took it upon herself to strike comments which were not EC users ([369], [370]), despite me requesting an uninvolved editor do so ([371]).
  • Having edited since 2015, she really should know better than to have attempted to short circuit what had clearly become a good-faith deletion discussion and her insistence on strict adherence to the ECR but not allowing an uninvolved editor to deal with it was incredibly frustrating and when combined when the clear anti-Ukraine POV-pushing, left a very sour taste in my mouth.
  • The dual speedy delete/speedy close attempt (Please speed close this nomination and someone who !voted "Delete" please renominate if want. at 08:48 ([372]) followed by the CSD request at 08:54 ([373]) means great potential for no delete !voters to see that message if she had gotten her way....), I find is also consistent with the pattern of disruptively focusing on procedural aspects as stated by another !voter in a reply ([374]) that she would eventually be warned for as previously summarized.

Other parties in the discussion

  • For what it's worth, Piotrus !voted to keep the article at the AfD ([375]), but made no other edits in the discussion beyond a single maintenance edit, while My very best wishes !voted to delete the article ([376]). - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 17:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional diffs re: GCB behaviour

Not summarised, now irrelevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • At Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators on December 26, 2022, Mzajac added an NPOV tag to the article[377] and started a talk page discussion regarding it.[378] GCB replied, pinging Mzajac, saying Why don’t you clean up problems?[379]
  • Two days later, GCB reverts an edit by an IP attempting to address the NPOV tag, with an edit summary of 30/500.[380] GCB makes no attempt to contact the editor either on their talk page or the article talk page to inform them of the ECR regarding WWII in Poland (and how it would apply to an article seemingly about Canada) or what 30/500 even means. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Tryptofish

Another RSN discussion

After I read another evidence section above, I looked and found another, albeit slightly earlier, discussion at WP:RSN that may be useful to look at, and it's not yet in the list of noticeboard discussions.

(Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, our page on the book, with summary of critical response. Not yet in the case page bibliography.)
(Jan T. Gross, our BLP of the author.)

Discussion started by a WikiEd person, over a disputed source used by a student in Chapmansh's course. Seems mostly to be consensus that the source is reliable, but needs to be used with attribution, a position expressed by Piotrus: [381]. Icewhiz is there, arguing that the book is so mainstream that attribution is unnecessary.

Chapmansh makes this comment: [382], which seems to me to be reasonable. The day before, she also said: [383] on the same topic, a diff already presented in Piotrus' evidence. This speaks to the POV of the G&K paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dispute of ArbCom motion accuracy

The matter has been discussed internally, and there are no corrections necessary.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Volunteer Marek has stated on case pages: [384], and elsewhere: [385], that ArbCom's motion, which implies that all personal information in the G&K paper had already been voluntarily posted onsite, may be factually inaccurate. ArbCom needs to check this assertion, and if necessary, make any needed corrections.

Misrepresentation of source material

Arbs are encouraged to read the Analysis section at question here. The original Zimmerman text has been quoted at length there and so arbs can make their own judgements about whether the material was misrepresented. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This happened on a case page, but I want to make sure that it gets evaluated as evidence, because it is exactly in scope. Discussion at this section of the Analysis page, especially analysis by Zero0000. My view of the salient conclusion in this comment: [386].

Evidence presented by François Robere


I was active in the topic area (TA) during 2018-2021, after which I mostly participated in noticeboard discussions.

Summary of G&K

Noted and linked at /Summary#Article and response

G&K make many observations that my experience suggests are correct, which I summarize below (page numbers in parentheses). I can provide other examples as needed, but I encourage the committee to review the already-extensive evidence presented in past noticeboard discussions, which were never considered by admins as part of a bigger whole.

The historical narrative in Poland

  • The "traditional" Holocaust narrative in Poland has been that of morality and heroism (3).
  • The 1980's have seen some progress with this narrative, including Jan Błoński's famous Biedni Polacy patrzą na getto ("The Poor poles Look at the Ghetto"), and it was further shaken in the early 2000's, with Jan T. Gross's Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, and by the many publications that followed in its footsteps. By the end of the decade the "traditional" narrative has been largely superceded, but not without some backlash from (primarily) Polish nationalist circles and "fringe academics" (3-5).
  • Poland's national remembrance organization, the Instytut Pamięci Narodowej (IPN), or "Institute of National Remembrance", has "temporarily embraced research on the most painful subjects of Polish-Jewish history" during that time, before shifting to the right in later years, partly because of the right-wing government's efforts to politicize the subject (4-5).
  • One of the highlights of this politicization has been the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, which "instilled an atmosphere of fear, as it not only delegitimized findings like Gross's, but potentially exposed scholars, educators, teachers, and the reading public to civil and criminal charges" (5-6).

Wikipedia's content

The "traditional" Polish Holocaust narrative remains relevant on en.Wiki (6):

  • The number of Polish victims of the Nazi occupation and the Holocaust has been inflated (7-8)
  • Polish collaboration with the Germans has been minimized (9)
  • The number of Poles who aided Jews, and the prevalence of such aid, have both been inflated (8-9, 13)
  • The role of the underground movement in providing aid to Jews has been exaggerated (9-10)
  • The danger from the Germans to Poles who provided aid to Jews has been emphasized, while the danger from fellow Poles - and by extension the prevalence of antisemitic perceptions among them - has been minimized (10-13)
  • Poles' role in the Kielce pogrom has been minimized (13-14)
  • Jews' wealth has been exaggerated (14-15)
  • Jews' collaboration with the Germans has been oversimplified and overemphasized (15-17)
  • Żydokomuna myths have been repeated (17)
  • Jews' role in the death of Poles has been wildly exaggerated (17-20)
  • Contemporary antisemitism in Poland has been minimized, for example in Jew with a coin (20-22)
  • Richard Lukas's The Forgotten Holocaust has been overused (22-23)
  • There were significant efforts by editors to both use and defend sources such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (23-27), Ewa Kurek (27-28, 48), Glaukopis (29-31), "Mark Paul" (31-34) and Peter Stachura (36-38)
  • Editors repeatedly downplayed, or even denigrated reputable scholars such as Jan T. Gross (35 / 1, 2), Christopher Browning (35 / 1, 2), Berel Lang (35 / 1) and Antony Polonsky (36-38 / 1, 2, 3), as well as Shmuel Krakowski ([387], [388]) and even Grabowski himself ([389])

Editors' conduct

  • Editors such as Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, who spend considerable time on-Wiki, understand the system well and have considerable "social capital", are exceedingly difficult to challenge - especially when they back each other (40-41)
  • Piotrus and VM have "purged" criticisms of the IPN (40 / Special:PermaLink/1100791296#Mass removal of criticisms)
  • They and others have prevented a short, neutrally-worded paragraph about property restitution from being included in The Holocaust in Poland (41 / Special:PermaLink/1092871024#Survey)
  • Several of these editors seem to be communicating off-Wiki (41-42 / WP:EEML)
  • Piotrus, VM, MyMoloboaccount and My very best wishes were members of the EEML (42 / WP:EEML)
  • Piotrus has offered other editors to communicate by email (42 / Special:PermaLink/843149146#WP:EMAIL, Special:PermaLink/863373791#WP:EMAIL)
  • Piotrus has canvassed on pl.Wiki (42 / AN thread)
  • Some disagreements between editors are no doubt honest, while others appear "tactical" (42-43)
  • VM, with others, has frustrated several months' worth of attempts to improve Jan Żaryn (43-44, 50)
  • Incivility in the TA is common (44-45)
  • VM uses profanities and personally attacks other editors with zeal (45-46[1])
  • On some articles, VM's contributions constitute little more than deleting other editors' additions (46 / xtools, xtools)
  • Editors have been worn down and driven away from the TA again and again (46-47 / Ealdgyth, Ermenrich, SlimVirgin, as well as Levivich,[390][391] Mhorg,[392] Buidhe[393] and myself).
  • Admins are not exempt from these stresses either (49 / JzG, Barkeep49, Ymblanter, Ymblanter, as well as El C[394] and probably Tamzin[395][396])
  • "Content" and "conduct" issues, particularly those covered by the essay, overlap (49-51)
  • The community has failed to address problems of subtle POV-pushing and source misrepresentation in the TA, while sometimes sanctioning those who report them, leading to a general aversion from even trying to (50-53). As Elinruby put it: "polite distortions of the truth seem to prevail in wiki proceedings over attempts to defend it that also express irritation"[397]
  • While the sourcing restriction was an improvement, the previous ARC did not resolve the TA's problems (51-52)
  • T-bans have been lifted for the wrong reasons more than once (53-54)
  • Joe Roe and El C deserve credit for realizing the effect their and others' attitudes had on the TA (54-55)
  • Icewhiz's "socking" caused various problems in the TA, one being that it opened an avenue of attack against other editors as alleged "socks" (55-56)


  1. ^

Volunteer Marek

Attacks, aspersions, hounding and general incivility

VM's T-ban, put in place during the 2019 ArbCom case,[398] was lifted on 18 December 2020.[399] Since then:

Summarised at multiple locations
  1. 20:55, 22 December 2020 "Are you confused about which one of the many disputes you’ve currently engaged yourself in, you’re commenting on? Understandable, since you’re involved in like half a dozen of them (all of which you started)" (to Buidhe)
  2. 15:09, 23 December 2020 Asked to avoid personal comments by me
  3. 21:47, 1 February 2021 "I suggest you actually follow the developments here rather than, as the superficial nature of your comment suggests, just reflexively picking a side" (to K.e.coffman)
  4. 23:15, 3 February 2021 Falsely accuses me of stalking him (refuted by Buidhe [400])
  5. 23:33, 3 February 2021 Again accuses me of stalking him
  6. 00:14, 6 February 2021 "Buidhe made big controversial changes without bothering to discuss them. Buidhe edit warred when these changes were challenged. Buidhe then tried to get their way by filing spurious AE report. Buidhe then couldn't help themselves and began edit warring again before any compromise could be worked out. Buidhe used a false edit summary which claimed WP:FALSECON. Buidhe removed multiple reliable sources from the article. Support for Buidhe has consisted of nothing more than some incivil substance free comments from you [FR] and generalities from one other editor [K.e.coffman?]. As an added bonus you began stalking my edits across multiple articles ... as some kind of payback or strategy or something. When I requested you stop, you doubled down on the rudeness and incivility"
  7. 09:12, 11 February 2021 Warned against "using [Icewhiz's] specter as a blunt instrument" by El C (admin)
  8. 03:20, 15 February 2021 Again accuses me of stalking him (refuted by K.e.coffman [401])
  9. On Talk:Zygmunt Krasiński and related discussions:
    1. 19:54, 19 February 2021 Makes up an elaborate scenario where I intentionally violated an I-ban, then accuses me of trying to WP:GAME it
    2. 19:33, 23 February 2021, 20:15, 23 February 2021 Puts that and a whole bunch more on RSN. This was so stressful at the time, that I asked for PP for the board.[402]
    3. 20:39, 23 February 2021 Warned against "misuse of RSN" by El C (admin)
    4. 21:20, 23 February 2021 Puts that rant in its own WP:ATTACKPAGE
    5. 15:25, 24 February 2021 I still wanted to address the content problem, but I didn't want people to read what he wrote about me, so before posting on NPOVN I collapsed his earlier attack as "unhelpful". When he sees this he un-collapses the attack, and I'm forced to delete the NPOVN post.[403][404])
    6. 17:43, 22 March 2021 Another warning by El C (admin)
  10. 15:35 18 March 2021 T&S refuse to intervene, stating that "there are sufficient community governance actions available... to handle the issue", and that "it doesn't appear that you or anyone else has attempted to report ongoing personal attacks or harassment by VM to either Arbcom... or a noticeboard in the past two years... so there's no way to confirm that the community isn't willing to handle the matter". My subsequent email, explaining why no reports have been being made, remains unanswered
  11. 18:47, 27 April 2021 Accuses Mhorg of canvassing
  12. 18:20, 18 June 2021 "Please stop restoring edits by indef banned users (Icewhiz) particularly since your long term on wiki relationship with them raises the issue of WP:MEATPUPPETRY" (refuted [405][406])
  13. 19:40, 18 June 2021 "I know this is, like, very inconvenient, since then you can’t line up the little pieces on the two sides of the “bad guys” and “good guys” line but this isn’t a Hollywood movie." (also factually wrong [407])
  14. 18:20, 19 June 2021 "The amount of text that was dedicated to Poland was UNDUE and served as a COATRACK. I’m bothered by the fact that you’ve shown up on several articles in the recent past solely to revert me" (refuted [408])
  15. 08:00, 7 July 2021 "let’s recount how your wiki-collaborator Icewhiz was topic banned for BLP violations, specifically (as in the ArbCom provided the diffs in their decision) with regard to the same Ewa Kurek who you just compared to a Holocaust denier" (the comparison was actually David Silberklang and Berel Lang's)
  16. 09:42, 16 July 2021 Follows me to Guerillero's TP, where he last posted in 2014,[409] then attacks me and another editor. Guerillero ends up warning me, instead of VM.
  17. 20:31, 31 July 2021 Reports an edit I made to Guerillero, but gives the wrong timing (it was two weeks, not "a couple of days") and misrepresents my previous message ("agitating for sanctions"). Guerillero finds the two edits related and decides to block me, ignoring the fact that if that were the case then WP:BANEX should apply.[410]
  18. 18:38, 3 August 2021 Ymblanter (admin) tries to block him and another editor for "edit warring" and "disruptive editing, tag-teaming [and] reverts" (respectively). We all know how that ended...[411][412][413]
  19. 03:24, 8 August 2021 Follows me to Barkeep49's TP and accuses me of supporting Icewhiz in "fabricating quotations... pretending sources said what they didn't say, mis-attributing sources... [and] arguing for reliability of a same source in one instance then trying to get that same source banned"
  20. 02:00, 22 November 2021 "it seems that the only reason some editors are so adamant on including this source... is simply because they want to "stick it to Piotrus". I think it's very clear that insistence on this particular, very flawed and unnecessary source, is to both grief Piotrus (and some other editors) and at the same time "protect Icewhiz's legacy" or something like that."
  21. 18:42, 27 November 2021 "all of this is a whole bunch of bad faithed ridiculous HOOEY pushed by Icewhiz's friends and meatpuppets on Wikipedia (since he can't do that himself, seeing as he's indefinetly banned for, among other things, making death threats agains editors' families). These friends - let's put all our cards on the table here - are Levivich and Francois Robere (usually supported in these endeavors by various sock puppets of Icewhiz or other indef banned users)."
  22. 19:01, 27 November 2021 "Levivich's write up is a masterwork of cynical sophistry, strategic omission and manipulation"
  23. 03:46, 15 January 2023, 04:00, 15 January 2023 While Callanecc (admin) admits that VM has a "history of personal attacks and/or casting aspersions", they "[do not] believe that a TBAN or block would be appropriate at this stage", and instead issue an "enhanced warning" in the form of an "indefinite civility restriction in the ARBEE topic area". Curiously, in the same discussion Synotia was blocked for making a single derogatory comment,[414], and Michael60634 - "a fairly new account" - was T-banned for six months. In another case, where an editor made improper comments that weren't as severe as VM's and without his long history of such, Callanecc's first instinct was to propose a T-ban.[415]
  24. 03:52, 10 February 2023, 06:36, 10 February 2023 Aspersions against G&K, two BLPs one of whom is also an editor. A similar comment by another editor was seen by Drmies (admin) as "beyond the pale".[416] At the same time, an account by the same name makes similar comments on social media.[417][418][419]
  25. 05:22, 12 February 2023 Accuses me of "supporting [Icewhiz]" and "[making] numerous efforts to have him rehabilitated and to relitigate the case, even after you became well aware of his extensive harassment of Wikipedians". He strikes this after I approach Callanecc later that day.[420] Though VM present no evidence that this behavior is in any way reciprocal, Callanecc proposes a 2-way I-ban as a solution.
  26. 03:35, 3 April 2023 Still follows my TP.

Out of scope
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

  1. 20:24, 8 July 2021 Asked to avoid bad faith accusations by Girth Summit (admin)
  2. 17:45, 3 October 2022 Beshogur notes VM's aggression in articles on Russia and Ukraine
  3. 22:56, 4 October 2021 "First you show up here to tag team with Levivich and brand new accounts that just scream WP:DUCK... you have absolutely no problem trying to punish [another editor] on the basis of (false) allegations YOU make against OTHER editors???... Because you and Levivich hold a grudge against me and blame me for getting your wiki buddy Icewhiz banned??? (Guess what, he actually got himself banned by making violent threats against other editors) This is a low even for ANI on Wikipedia"
  4. 20:17, 26 November 2021 "This whole thing is here simply because a banned editor and his friends and a bunch of sock puppets went and spammed this incident into as many articles as they could as a form of 'revenge' for the fact that said editor got side banned from all WMF projects"
  5. 00:32, 6 October 2021 Warned by Wugapodes against disruptive behavior (admin)
  6. 06:39, 7 November 2022 Blocked by Tamzin (admin) for WP:GAMING 1RR. Like with Ymblanter, Tamzin too is forced to unblock him and even apologize.[421][422][423]
  7. 20:50, 28 November 2022 Again with combative attitude and mass deletions.
  8. 04:51, 25 January 2023 Accusing Cukrakalnis of abusing a noticeboard.
  9. 00:26, 2 February 2023 Accuses PilotSheng of edit-warring and WP:POINT
  10. 20:14, 4 February 2023 Accuses Alaexis of "cherry-picking"
Not summarized yet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. 02:58, 26 January 2021, 03:14, 26 January 2021 Asked to AGF and warned against making PAs by Paul Siebert
  2. 01:12, 2 February 2021 Asked to avoid "personalising the discussion and assuming bad faith right off the bat" by K.e.coffman
  3. 21:19, 4 February 2021 Admonished by Generalrelative
  4. 13:29, 9 February 2021 Asked to ping editors against whom he makes threats and baseless accusations (by Boynamedsue)
  5. 04:48, 10 February 2021 Asked for civility by K.e.coffman; replies by banning her from his TP, misrepresenting my comments, then scouring my TP for "dirt"
  6. 18:25, 18 June 2021 "That’s a funny way to “count” (sic). Is that the “new math”?" (he's also factually wrong)
  7. 14:17, 19 June 2021 Asked to AGF by Brigade Piron
  8. 19:37, 19 June 2021 "The fact that you seem to purposefully exclude a key piece of info... will suggest to readers that you’re not filing this with WP:CLEANHANDS... You might want to take out all the falsehoods before you file this, though I’m not sure how much you gonna have left at that point" (to Szmenderowiecki, after reading a message they left on my TP [424])
  9. 15:07, 7 July 2021 El C (admin) refuses to get involved
  10. 16:21, 26 August 2021 Claims that a law on post-war property restitution is "only tangentially related to the Holocaust", then accuses me of "WP:COATRACKing"
  11. 05:35, 14 July 2022 EvergreenFir (admin) notes that VM has been taken to AE 22 times
  12. 03:09, 23 August 2022 Asked to "keep cool" by L'Origine du monde

Also cf. G&K on incivility (44-45), profanities (45-46), social capital (40-41), and editors and admins being driven out of the TA (46-47, 49).

Not summarized.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. 01:04, 19 June 2021 Asked to avoid making accusations in edit summaries by K.e.coffman
  2. 18:43, 19 June 2021 Unclear insinuation about K.e.coffman
  3. 08:50, 11 July 2021, 08:56, 11 July 2021 Accidentally reverts another editor on K.e.coffman's TP. It seems despite banishing the latter from his TP several months earlier, he continued to follow hers
  4. 22:19, 24 June 2022 When Szmenderowiecki files an AE as per arbs' instructions (see Wugapodes's comment), VM posts the following: "Szmenderowiecki filed a WP:AE report because… someone disagreed with them (civility, politely) in a discussion???... I don’t even understand what policy these are supposed to violate. This seems to boil down to “how dare you have an opinion different from mine!!!!” I mean, I’ve seen some ridiculously spurious WP:AE reports over the years but this has got to be some kind of record for Just ban Szmenderowiecki from WP:AE and tell them to quit wasting people’s time"
  5. 22:43, 20 October 2022 Accuses me of making an attempt "to renew [Icewhiz's harassment campaign]"
  6. March 2023 Assorted accusations against Grabowski, Klein, HaeB and Groceryheist. No diffs provided

BATTLEGROUND, ABF and competence

Summarized in multiple sections

VM seems to have a problem assuming good faith with editors he deeply disagrees with; he presents their edits in the worst possible light, accuses them of lying and manipulation, and deletes their edits in bulk. This leads to a lot of needless friction and derailed discussions (naturally, there's much overlap between this and his PA and hounding behavior), but also to errors one wouldn't expect from an editor as seasoned as he. It also impedes the training of less experienced editors (Mhorg and Szmenderowiecki in 2021, Gitz in 2022, and myself in 2018), who instead of being instructed in good editing practices and collaborative work, are shown adversarialism and tracked towards conduct dispute boards.

  1. 19:06, 15 February 2021 Seems to believe editors are there to "punish" Poland
  2. 16:55, 19 February 2021 Removes all mentions of antisemitism from Zygmunt Krasiński, then when I ask him about it he adds one back,[425] and claims that "it was still there".[426][427]
  3. 23:31, 26 April 2021, 15:34, 7 June 2021 (throughout the discussion) Claims that some text was unsourced, OR, or misrepresented the source, even when it's a direct, representative quote.[428][429]
  4. 23:25, 27 May 2021 Same.[430]
  5. 06:17, 8 June 2021, 15 June 2021, 03:47, 19 June 2021 Same.
  6. 13:00, 9 June 2021 Threads his comments improperly,[431] then complains about others doing so.[432][433]
  7. 18 June 2021 Removes a claim attributed to Robert Bakiewicz as "who cares what a neo Nazi thinks", but takes out the foreign minister of Poland along the way.
  8. 23:48, 22 June 2021 Misreads the instructions ("where bold text is present, only [that] is in question"), then reacts aggressively when he's corrected.
  9. 22:19, 24 June 2022 When Szmenderowiecki files an AE against GCB, as per arbs' instructions (see comment by Wugapodes), VM claims that "[he] filed a WP:AE report because… someone disagreed with them (civility, politely) in a discussion???... I don’t even understand what policy these are supposed to violate. This seems to boil down to “how dare you have an opinion different from mine!!!!” I mean, I’ve seen some ridiculously spurious WP:AE reports over the years but this has got to be some kind of record for Just ban Szmenderowiecki from WP:AE and tell them to quit wasting people’s time"
  10. 15:38, 28 June 2021 Same.
  11. 08:08, 28 June 2021 Accuses me of trying to push false content (refuted [434])
  12. 20:48, 15 August 2021, 23:32, 15 August 2021 Within an hour and a half of me finishing a well-sourced stub, he starts deleting it. He appears to haven't even read what he was deleting.[435]
  13. 06:42, 18 August 2021 Restores edits by another editor that contain plagiarism and basic errors.[436] (#5-6)
  14. 09:55, 26 August 2021 Removes an admittedly clumsy, but well-sourced statement, and replaces it with an unsourced one. When I revert him, he reverts me back,[437] then accuses me of "trying to start an edit war".[438]
  15. 19:02, 23 August 2022 Asked to avoid edit-warring by WikiHannibal; responds by accusing them of "trying to intimidate someone over a possible content disagreement".
  16. 22:08, 18 October 2022, 22:11, 18 October 2022, 22:10, 18 October 2022, 22:54, 18 October 2022, 23:02, 18 October 2022, 23:45, 18 October 2022, 23:52, 18 October 2022, 22:43, 20 October 2022 Deletes Political editing on Wikipedia shortly after I create it, then follows me to Lovkal's TP (which he never visited), then to Levivich's TP (which he quotes to Lovkal), then goes to Bishonen's TP to attack me there, then leaves a message on my TP (which he was asked not to touch), and when I delete it goes to Doug Weller's TP and links it there. Finally, he goes to Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia and accuses me of making "an attempt to renew [Icewhiz's harassment campaign]". It's clear from his comment to Bishonen that he didn't even read what he was deleting, and when confronted offers precious little in terms of reasoning.[439][440] The cleanup he leaves for others.[441][442]
  17. 19:27, 10 February 2023, 21:31, 12 February 2023 Claims that links in the G&K essay don't work, even when he's told (by Szmenderowiecki, HEB and myself) that all he needs to do is copy-paste them.
  18. 08:05, 5 March 2023 Misreads what TrangaBellam wrote[443] and accuses them of making false accusations. They weren't.[444]
  19. 22:42, 5 March 2023 Repeatedly distorts what HaeB writes, as pointed out by the latter.
  20. 00:06, 8 March 2023 Misreads what Levivich wrote, then when he explains it, accuses him of "Wikilawyering and manipulation".
  21. 00:23, 11 March 2023 While he diffs to a discussion where it's made clear that at least four editors have left the TA due to his and others' behavior,[445] VM believes that "the only people that have genuinely been 'driven off' via extensive harassment and abuse are those that opposed Icewhiz" (emphasis mine).

Also cf. G&K on "stonewalling" (43-44, 50), incivility (44-45), deletionism (46), and editors and admins being driven out of the TA (46-47, 49).

"Meatpuppetry" and potential off-wiki coordination

Piotrus asking for emails

  1. Piotrus asks editors he perceives as similarly-minded to enable the "email user" option
    1. GCB
    2. E-960

April 2020

Not summarised for now. Watching talk pages describes this behaviour just as much as e-mail coordination.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. On 24 March 2020 I file an AE against GizzyCatBella on T-ban vios.[446]
    1. GCB replies 13 hours later and accuses me of "hounding" her.[447]
    2. Piotrus replies two hours later, defends GCB and subtly suggests that I was at fault.[448]
    3. The next day, MyMoloboaccount returns from a month-long hiatus and makes a similar accusation to that made by GCB.[449] MMA only makes one other edit that day.
  2. On 29 March GCB posts on my TP.[450]
    1. A few hours later, so does Piotrus, who offers himself as mediator and adviser.[451] GCB would later become his mentee.[452]
    2. A day and a half later, MMA arrives too.[453]
    3. The same day I'm also contacted by then-admin RexxS, who threatens to block me unless I can explain certain edits.[454] At that point RexxS is yet to check the articles' histories (they did later on [455]), and so doesn't know that I self-reverted, and why.
  3. On the night of 2 April, Volunteer Marek, whose T-ban was still in effect and with whom I've had little contact for a while, posts on my TP three times, each triggering a "ping" for RexxS, despite being reverted and asked not to do so.[456][457][458]
    1. Piotrus comments again, again subtly suggesting that some sort of sanction is needed.[459]
  4. Around the same time, Piotrus, VM and GCB all post to RexxS's TP, starting three separate threads.[460][461][462]

24 April Icewhiz SPI

Not summarised for now. Watching talk pages describes this behaviour just as much as e-mail coordination.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. On 24 April Piotrus opens an SPI request and states that he will "inform" other editors.[463] There's no evidence that he did.[464]
  2. The next day GCB resumes editing after a two week hiatus[465] and asks an admin whether she can comment on the SPI.[466]
  3. On 26 April VM arrives.[467]
  4. On the same day MMA resumes editing after a 25 day hiatus.[468][469] He comments on the thread two days later.[470]

Zygmunt Krasiński and The Undivine Comedy

  1. On 18 May Piotrus starts editing on Zygmunt Krasiński.[471]
  2. On 25 May he is reverted by Mellow Boris.[472]
  3. The very minute MB finished his edits, VM accidentally reverts Piotrus, then self-reverts.[473][474] This are his first edits to this article.
  4. The next day, MB creates The Undivine Comedy.[475]
  5. An hour later GizzyCatBella reverts him on Zygmunt Krasiński, in her first edit to the article.[476]
  6. 15m later, VM deletes The Undivine Comedy.[477].
  7. 20m after that, GCB arrives and starts rewriting the article.[478]
  8. Piotrus joins them the following morning.[479]

Encyklopedia II wojny światowej

Not summarised for now. Watching talk pages describes this behaviour just as much as e-mail coordination.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. On 25 May the source is challenged on RSN.[480]
  2. Piotrus replies the same day.[481]
  3. The following night MMA returns from a 10 day hiatus and comments in support of Piotrus.[482]
    1. Piotrus's reply.
    2. In the same thread Piotrus questions me on how I arrived at the discussion; I ask why he didn't ask MMA that question, and he goes silent.[483]

WP:AfD/Polish invasion of Czech Republic

Out of scope
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. On 15 June Darwinek starts an AfD on the Polish invasion of Czech Republic.
  2. At 07:05 the next day, VM comments.[484]
  3. Then, at 07:10, Piotrus.[485]
  4. Then, at 10:13, GCB.[486]
  5. And MMA at 16:12.[487] Between 4 June and 1 July he makes no other edits.

History of Poland

Out of scope.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. Oliszydlowski implies on two occasions that discussion had taken place on History of Poland which has no record on-Wiki ("we also suspected", "we disagree to").[488][489]
  2. They do not reply when confronted.[490]