User:Volunteer Marek/responsetofalseaccusations

This is from the Evidence page

Icewhiz says:

[19] - "per sources, "enormous", "most" etc. ..." - claiming "most Poles" (more than 12 million) were involved in Holocaust rescue is in WP:FRINGE turf. Mainstream sources see rescuers as a minority.[8] "Most" rather impossible to source outside of Nasz Dziennik,[9] see also Rydzyk.[10][11][12]

This is the diff of my edit Icewhiz is complaining about [1]

Here is reality:

1. Neither I nor anyone else used "Nasz Dziennik" or "Rydzyk" as a source as Icewhiz's statement falsely insinuates. This is Icewhiz trying to use a non-sequitur to engage in smear-by-association
2. Likewise it is absolute not true that I or anyone else claimed that "most Poles were involved in Holocaust rescue". The dispute is between using the phrase "some Poles" (rescued Jews during the Holocaust) and "many Poles". Icewhiz falsely pretends that I am claiming that "most" Poles were involved in rescue. "Many" is not the same as "most". Icewhiz is simply lying. "Most" would indeed be FRINGE. "Many" is not.
3. The sources indeed use the term "enormous effort" to describe the rescue efforts. "Many" reflects "enormous" better than "some" which is an obvious attempt to downplay the rescue efforts.
4. The sources indeed use the word "most" to refer to the fact that there are more Poles among the Righteous Among Nations than any other nationality. So it's "most out of any country", not "most of the country". Icewhiz is using a false equivalence to pretend I said something I didn't.
5. I have no idea where Icewhiz gets the "more than 12 million" from or what the hey it's suppose to mean. This doesn't appear either in my edit, in the sources, or in the article.

This is WP:TENDENTIOUS at best, and a straight up deceitful misrepresentation of another person's edits by Icewhiz.

This is the second "1." (?) in Icewhiz's statement under "VM's conduct:" [2]

Icewhiz says:

VM has restored/inserted material on Jews/communists not supported by citations: "Soviet-armed Jewish militiamen helped NKVD agents send Polish families into exile"[3][4] (not in source). The two diffs are [3] (which is a partial revert of [4]), and [5], which I self-reverted 8 minutes later [6])

Here is reality:

1. Here is the relevant talk page discussion [7]
2. The source does indeed say that, almost verbatim (pointed out on talk page). Icewhiz kept falsely denying that this was the case.
3. The source is here.
4. The exact quote from the source is "Dov Levin has similarly concluded "the labeling of the Soviet administration as a 'Jewish regime' became widespread when Jewish militiamen helped NKVD agents send local Poles into exile."" Note this is a direct quote from Dov Levin
5. Same source quotes another Israeli historian, Yitzhak Arad: ""although there were also thousands of Jews among the exiles [who were arrested], Jews played a relatively large role in the Communist Party apparatus that was behind the action.""
6. The source is clearly reliable. The author is Alexander B. Rossino, "a research historian at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. with Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) from the Syracuse University in New York". These are NOT "Polish nationalists" writing these but mainstream, Israeli and American scholars.

Here is the actual issue:

1. Icewhiz removed the text here, with the edit summary "properly sourced". This is at best an unclear edit summary, more likely, it obscures the fact that Icewhiz is REMOVING text which is backed up by reliable sources.
2. The source does not specifically mention THIS particular town, Radziłów, it only refers to the region that the town is in. This is a potentially valid objection.
3. Because Icewhiz was insisting that this passage was not in the source (apparently because the source says "local Poles" rather than "Polish families") the part about the specific town was not immediately obvious.
4. Once it became apparent that the issue was with the source not specifically mentioning this town, I acknowledge that this was a valid point [8]
5. I subsequently removed the info myself [9]

So:

Icewhiz presents two diffs to backup his false attack. In the first one I restored the text simply because his prior removal was done with an edit summary which obfuscated (if not falsified) the issue. Both Dov Levin and Alexander Rossino are reliable sources so removing them under the pretense of "proper(ly) sourcing" the article seemed topsy-turvy. In the second diff I restored the text again, but at this point it was still not clear what the objection was AND Icewhiz kept on falsely insisting on talk that the source does not back up the text. More importantly I realized that the problem was the fact that the specific town wasn't mentioned in the source (just the region) and removed the text myself minutes later [10] [11]

If Icewhiz had simply said "this doesn't belong here because the source does not mention this particular town", the whole issue could have been avoided. Instead he had to insist, falsely, that the text itself was not in the source. He did not properly explain his reasons for removal either on talk or in his edit summary (which was misleading, at best).

Note that in his presentation of the situation on the ArbCom Request Case Icewhiz completely omits the context. He does NOT include a link to the talk page discussion. He does NOT explain that the issue was whether the town or the region was mentioned in the source. He falsely pretends that the issue was "material on Jews/communists not supported by citations". He does NOT let the reader know that I removed this text myself.

This level of manipulation and misrepresentation, done knowingly and with intent, constitutes lying about a fellow editor (and people accuse me of "bad faith"!!!).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz says: See this discussion - VM seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing (or as a bargaining chip?) for content (WP:BLP scholar attributed) clearly failing V.

The characterization is blatantly false. I could just as easily assert that Icewhiz is "arguing for the sake of arguing (or as a bargaining chip?)" since it's not at all true that the content "fails V". But actually it's worse than that. Icewhiz is misrepresenting sources and other editors in an attempt to introduce POV into an article.

The reality:

1. On talk page Icewhiz makes a false statement: "I removed this per WP:HOAX". EVEN IF one disputes what's in the source, this is clearly NOT a "HOAX". Icewhiz has a habit of making exaggerated and hyperbolic accusations against others of this sort and he has been warned about it before (indeed, it played a part in his previous topic ban from the area)
2. Icewhiz also falsely pretends in the same talk page comment that this is a "BLP issue". Icewhiz pretends that ANY edit where there is a disagreement over sources is a "BLP issue" (apparently because sources are written by living people). This is also a tactic meant to cast those he disagrees with in the worst possible light and it contributes greatly to the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere in this topic area. Icewhiz has been admonished by other editors and administrators previously about this kind of purposeful misrepresentation of policy.
3. Icewhiz, in the same talk page comment, brings up a source, Najwyzszy Czas magazine, which is unreliable, but which, crucially, nobody is trying to use on this article. It's some kind of guilt by association and an underhanded way of saying "well, this source is reliable, but there are unreliable sources out there somewhere, so that makes it ok for me to remove the reliable source"
4. My comment - rather than being "arguing for sake of arguing" - points out that this is not a HOAX, that Icewhiz is misrepresenting BLP policy, and that we are NOT using "Najwyzszy Czas" as a source.

My other two comments in that discussion are accurate characterizations of the source, contrary to Icewhiz false assertion that the text "fails V"

1. The source in question, Ellman, says that Polish Operation of the NKVD "may qualify as genocide as defined by the UN Convention"
2. Ellman then goes on to consider three arguments against this position. This is standard practice in scholarly work - you entertain possible opposing arguments. That DOES NOT by any means that you endorse these opposing arguments, as Icewhiz is trying to pretend. Indeed, the paragraphs following the above Ellman quote are devoted precisely to debunking the arguments. This is obvious from the text.
3. In this comment Icewhiz resorts to insulting condescending language ("quite precious") and once again brings up sources which are not being used in the article, as a justification for his removal of reliable sources which are. This is basically a bait-and-switch tactic.

Note also that the exact same issue was discussed previously here. Note that this discussion took place PRIOR to the one being cited by Icewhiz. Icewhiz ALREADY KNEW what the arguments were but he repeats his obstinate misrepresentation of policy and sources on another article's talk page per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Note also that in that initial discussion Icewhiz is a lot more explicit and blatant in his misrepresentation of the Ellman source, insisting that just because Ellman considers possible opposite arguments (and then debunks them) then that means he endorses them. This is straight up dishonest.

Icewhiz says:

:::: SilkTork - if a source says "white", is cited in the article, and an editor (VM and in some cases others) say no, it says "black" - that is not a content dispute but a conduct issue (or at best CIR if not on purpose). Content can be selection of sources, balance, etc. - not in clear case of misrepresenting sources. As for VM removing "Polish" from a Polish citizen (and state employee) - Morel - who happened to be Jewish - that is a redline conduct issue - we wouldn't tolerate users removing "American" from Jewish-Americans on the basis that they are Jewish.

The relevant article is Salomon Morel.

The edit that Icewhiz appears to be complaining about is this one, which removes "Polish" from the first sentence.

Icewhiz's complaint is absurd. As has been explained to Icewhiz REPEATEDLY the reason for the removal was simple - the fact the guy was Polish is readily apparent from the context and rest of the sentence. Icewhiz's complaint is a typical hyperbolic hysterical fake bad faithed attempt to pretend that a minor, inconsequential edit constitutes something nefarious.

Regarding the wording of Icewhiz complaint. No idea what this "white" and "black" is suppose to refer to. Neither Icewhiz's complaint nor his revert of my action [12] cites ANY sources. There are no sources here to be "misrepresented".

The second part about removing "American" from "Jewish-American". No idea what that is suppose to prove or mean but I'm guessing he's saying that if an article calls somebody "Polish-Jewish" and somebody removes the "Polish" part then that'd be bad. I actually agree. EXCEPT that the article did NOT describe Morel as "Polish-Jewish". It described him as "Polish" and then it included a text which made it obvious that he was Polish anyway.

Icewhiz is trying to pretend that this is something it's not. He's making subtle, underhanded, insinuations. They're insinuations rather than outright accusations for the very simple reason that they're completely made up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

What bothers me however is this. Unlike complicated content issues, this is something immediately obvious. He got you. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course I understand that your comments have been provoked, but the comments by another "side" can be reasonably viewed just as a tense discussion. I too feel pretty bad about one of people who commented in this case (not Icewhiz) but preferred just to stay away and let him to damage to edit whatever he wants. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Essentially all of Icewhiz's diffs against me (as of June 10gh) involve minor, fairly uncontroversial edits which then Icewhiz tries to pretend constitute some horrible crime, and he does this by trying to falsely associate me and smear me by bringing up irrelevant notions or sources which I never endorsed or used. In particular he writes: "The NSZ is known as antisemitic,[1][2] killing many Jews". Yes it is, and I've never said anything otherwise. In fact I've removed far-right bullshit which tried to whitewash the organization myself. The diff Icewhiz presents has NOTHING TO DO with whether NSZ was antisemitic etc. Icewhiz is trying to falsely insinuate (in a pretty vicious smear) that I disagree with the notion that NSZ was antisemitic. Nonsense.

Likewise he keeps bringing up "far-right Nasz Dziennik" as if I had used this publication as I source. I never have and simply wouldn't. This is also just a false insinuation.

Both of these illustrate Icewhiz's manipulative approach to editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, which involves misrepresenting other users (as well as sources but that's a separate issue) and exemplify the underlying problems that his presence in the topic area have caused. Nobody wants to have a discussion with someone who's busy making false horrible attacks against you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Icewhiz says: [19] - "per sources, "enormous", "most" etc. ..." - claiming "most Poles" (more than 12 million) were involved in Holocaust rescue is in WP:FRINGE turf. Mainstream sources see rescuers as a minority.[8] "Most" rather impossible to source outside of Nasz Dziennik,[9] see also Rydzyk.[10][11][12]. This is the diff of my edit Icewhiz is complaining about [13]

Here is reality:

1. Neither I nor anyone else used "Nasz Dziennik" or "Rydzyk" as a source as Icewhiz's statement falsely insinuates. No idea where this comes from. This is Icewhiz trying to use a non-sequitur to engage in smear-by-association.
2. Likewise it is absolutely NOT true that I or anyone else claimed that "most Poles were involved in Holocaust rescue". The dispute is between using the phrase "some Poles" (rescued Jews during the Holocaust) and "many Poles". Icewhiz falsely pretends that I am claiming that "most" Poles were involved in rescue. I am clearly not. He just made that up.
3. The sources indeed use the term "enormous effort" to describe the rescue efforts. "Many" reflects "enormous" better than "some" which is an obvious attempt to downplay the rescue efforts. The sources also state at minimum "hundreds of thousands" involved in rescue efforts, possibly much higher. That sounds like "many" to me.
4. The sources indeed use the word "most" to refer to the fact that there are more Poles among the Righteous Among Nations than any other nationality. So it's "most out of any country", not "most out of the population of a country". Icewhiz is using a false equivalence to pretend I said something I didn't.
5. I have no idea where Icewhiz gets the "more than 12 million" from or what the hey it's suppose to mean. This doesn't appear either in my edit, in the sources, or in the article.

This is WP:TENDENTIOUS at best, and a straight up deceitful misrepresentation of another person's edits by Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Icewhiz says: "2017 challenge on basis of "There is no evidenc for the passage, the outrageous comparing of Poles and Jews in the last sentence ist terrible", VM reverts in 2019." - Ummmm, my revert [14] was of a sockpuppet of indef banned user [15], so first, it's legitimate on the basis of WP:BANREVERT alone. Kaiser Von Europa was banned for spreading neo-Nazi propaganda and making threats, doxxing, and extensive sock puppetry by User:Salvio_giuliano. He's also banned from other Wikis (German) I have no idea why Icewhiz is complaining that I reverted edits by a neo-Nazi sockpuppet here. It seems, the neo-Nazi sock puppet was anti-Polish. It kind of looks like the sock saw the general tone of Icewhiz's edits and tried to piggy back on them. That's... kind of Icewhiz's problem, not mine.

My revert undid a whole bunch of POV changes made by the sock account, not just one particular sentence that Icewhiz objects to. As far as that one particular sentence goes, it's a simple content dispute and when Icewhiz raised it on talk, User:Piotrus remove the part Icewhiz objected to. So.... why is this "evidence"? It's just an attempt at a smear by Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Apparently, now my rebuttals to Icewhiz are being used as "evidence". Under his "ASPERSIONS" sections he says: "Socking: [19], [20],[21]", which are three accusations of sock puppetry I made. For starters, this makes it appear as if I'm accusing Icewhiz of sockpuppetry. I'm not.

• The second diff is my comment right above which begins with "Icewhiz says..." So me explaining that an IP user whom I reverted was a sock puppet of an indef banned user is now "evidence" against me. FFS, *it was* a sock puppet of an indef banned user User:Kaiser von Europa.
• The first diff from Icewhiz is the same thing. It's me reiterating that I reverted a sock puppet of a banned user [16]. Icewhis knows this by now. This is straight up WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
• The third diff is me accusing another IP user on another user's talk page - not Icewhiz - of being a sock puppet of indef'd banned User:Hidden Tempo. Which it was. Ask User:Bishonen. Or look at the sub-reddit comment section where the Hidden Tempo's account wrote the exact same damn thing as on Sir Joseph's talk page.

None of these actually have anything to do with the disputes between Icewhiz and myself. None of these diffs actually show anything problematic. Yes indeed, there are indef'd users busy sock puppeting on Wikipedia. Surprise surprise! WHY is Icewhiz bringing this up in this AbrCom case? What does it have to do with anything? Answer: he's desperately trying to throw any mud and accusations my way no matter how ridiculous and absurd, hoping something sticks. That is the definition of bad faith, WP:GAME and WP:TENDENTIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Icewhiz says: "bigotry": [1] (after I removed fiction) This is a gross misrepresentation. My comment was NOT made in response to Icewhiz "removing fiction", which in fact, nobody here objected to (he wasn't reverted). My comment was in response to this comment by Icewhiz on talk, in which he 1) misrepresents the nature of the dispute (NO ONE disputes that this was a legend), 2) misrepresents sources (first source does not call Dlugosz antisemitic, only asks the question, second source emphasizes both POSITIVE and negative uses of the legend - Icewhiz pretends that the source only does the latter, and falsely pretends that positive uses of the legends are confined only to Jewish literature, which, according to the source, is not true at all). The comment made by Icewhiz is part of the general attempts by Icewhiz to portray Poles as intrinsically anti-semitic. While there is most certainly anti-semitism in Poland, like all European countries, Icewhiz's WP:AGENDA does have very disturbing ethnic basis. And the word for that does indeed begin with a "b".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Icewhiz says: "nonesense...peddling": [4] This is response to this this comment. The idea that all Polish sources after 2018 cannot be considered reliable is indeed nonsense. At least in this instance Icewhiz didn't try to, in all seriousness, compare freedom of press in Poland to that of ... North Korea ([diff placeholder]) (in fact Poland has a higher rating when it comes to freedom of expression and speech than Israel (14/16 [17] vs. 12/16 [18] and same as France [19]). Icewhiz does indeed have a history of trying to evaluate the reliability of sources based on their "ethnicity", specifically trying to argue that sources are non-reliable simply because they're "Polish". That's a problem with Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

More later, but the following is pretty despicable and false:

Francois Robere accuses me of: Suggesting we do OR to involve a Jewish leader in a massacre: [50][51]. This is the discussion FR links. As is very clear from it I do no such thing. FFS, what I do is THE OPPOSITE. My first comment there explicitly states "a lot of far-right, anti-semitic, websites which place blame on him (Kovner)". In the second link provided by FR (Icewhiz derailed the first discussion) I explicitly state: "There are some sources which for some reason mention Kovner in connection to this massacre. I think they're garbage and they got it wrong.". How in the freakin' llamas is that trying to a "involve a Jewish leader in a massacre"???????? It's the OPPOSITE. I am clearly saying this guy (Kovner) WASN'T involved despite the fact that some sources claim he was. This is... gaslighting? Lying? Pretending white is black and black is white? Up is down and down is up? It's exactly this kind of dishonesty in discussions which has led me to, on several occasions to tell FR to "stop making stuff up" which he presents in some of his other diffs. What else would you call this? He is making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@FR - Kovner's participation is mentioned in a number of sources, most of which are junk, but not all - for example this book by Robert Cohen or the Jewish Virtual Library (which can't be characterized as anti-semitic). Basically, it's a somewhat common error in some sources. That's what motivated my question. And if you sincerely think that this constitutes an attempt "to involve a Jewish leader in a massacre" then you have some serious reading comprehension problems. But I don't actually think you sincerely believe that. You're just... making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

And seriously, if someone is willing to show up to an ArbCom Case evidence page and lie so blatantly like FR does here then it obviously means that ... they don't have a very high opinion of the ArbCom members intellectual abilities. Why else would you think you could get away with it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, as someone who works with data professionally, I just got to say: this table is silly. EVEN IF you AGF Francois that he filled in the table accurately there's the obvious problem of WP:CHERRY-picking and non-random sampling. These are not all the discussions/RfCs etc. that have been held in this topic area in the past two years. FR seems to have basically just gone through and made sure to pick out mostly those discussions where he voted in accordance with closure. And this isn't just my bad faith talking. FR does have a history of falsely claiming consensus for his edits. For example here (at the time the split was about 50/50, maybe even leaning against FR's "side", or here (FR pretends that only myself and Piotrus were for inclusion, in fact there were at least two other editors) and then again here (at this point I think his claim of "obvious consensus" was just taunting designed to provoke because if anything was "obvious" at this point, it was the clear lack of consensus either way).

But since here we're suppose to evaluate the evidence presented, let's NOT assume that he filled in the table accurately. Let's actually do some fact checking. I'm not gonna check every single user he has in there but I'll check myself and him. And in the very first line we see misrepresentation. This is the discussion FR is referencing. The question was "does source support statement". FR voted No. I voted Yes. RfC was closed as "moot" since other sources have been added. FR counts this as against me and in favor of himself. That's clearly manipulative. It should either NOT be counted at all (as "moot" suggests) or counted for me and against him, since at the end of the day, the sentence was included.

And then there is inclusion of "trivial" discussions which were closed with WP:SNOW such as this one. This appears to be a way to "pad" the "agreement with closure" results in FR's favor. Personally, when I see a discussion where the outcome is pretty much predetermined cuz WP:SNOW, I don't see a point in voting for it. So FR adds himself a few "wins" by including such discussions. If this table was honest, then he'd exclude essentially non-controversial discussions such as these.

The calculations in the lower table are also off. For myself, I count 5 out of 7 instances of agreement with the closure (71.4%) or 4 out of 6 (66.66%) if we don't count the first listed discussion at all. For FR I count either 8 out of 13 (61.5%) if we count first discussion or 8 out of 12 (66.66%) if we don't. So effectively our numbers are about the same, or even, mine are possibly higher.

If you really want me to, I can calculate the standard errors and confidence intervals here and do a t test to show that statistically speaking our %'s are basically the same, but really, with non-random sampling and such a low N (13 at best) it's kind of meaningless. As is FR's whole table.

So basically, EVEN WITH cherry picked data, FR still has to do some sneaky data manipulation and massaging to get the conclusion he wants. This is really the case of "lies, damned lies and statistics".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)