Wikipedia intentionally distorting Holocaust history?

[ScotFinnRadish]

Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust
New paper in the Journal of Holocaust Research. They seem to think Wikipedia is no good.

[Hemiauchenia]

It should be noted that Jan Grabowski is not exactly an uninvolved observer here. He was involved in on wiki disputes during the prelude to the Holocaust in Poland arbitration case, which also involved disputes over his Wikipedia biography.

That said, having read the paper, most of the authors criticisms are pretty perceptive and in my opinion correct. The way Piotrius, GCB and VM (which the paper explicitly calls out by name numerous times) have been able to essentially exhaust their opponents and force them out of the topic area really shows the weaknesses of the Wikipedia system, but as the paper notes, Icewhiz's sockpuppetry has really backfired and has strengthened their postion.

[Bezdomni]

Hey SFR, am I free to comment?



Searching for Glaukopis, it seems that folks here were warned about this too.

PS: curiously, search does not dig up the clearest post about this right-wing source. I suggest searching the pdf in OP for Glaukopis.

[Smultronstället]

The 2019 Arbitration Committee case ended dismally for defenders of historical accuracy. Instead of sanctioning Volunteer Marek for restoring unreliable sources and defending misrepresentations of sources, the administrators accused Icewhiz himself of distortion. Absurdly, they charged him with BLP violations for saying that Ewa Kurek had an ‘outlandish interpretation’ of the ghettos and that her work was ‘questionable from historical and moral points of view,’ blind to the fact that these were correct statements based on secondary sources.Footnote278 The arbitrators also claimed that Icewhiz had made an ‘ethnically derogatory comment’ simply by using the word ‘Polocaust’ to describe Piotrowski’s argument, not realizing that Polish revisionists use this term to assert the equivalence between Polish and Jewish victimhood, and scholars use it to describe such revisionism.Footnote279 As a result of their skewed understanding, the arbitrators not only missed the manipulations taking place before their very eyes, but topic-banned Icewhiz.

It would be interesting hearing from the arbs who helped make the decisions in that case.

[Smultronstället]

Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust
New paper in the Journal of Holocaust Research. They seem to think Wikipedia is no good.

My interpretation of the piece is that they think far too highly of Wikipedia. I don't think they have begun to grasp what it is.

[Smultronstället]

Can anyone provide a summary of why Icewhiz parted ways with this forum?

[Bezdomni]

What makes you think that? I just asume that he's posting as GizzyCatBella these days.

[Midsize Jake]

It should be noted that Jan Grabowski is not exactly an uninvolved observer here.

Well, it's completely one-sided, isn't it? If you go and look at the articles he's complaining about, practically all of them contain material that's either directly critical of the Polish people or the Polish WW2-era government with respect to Jews in Poland, but that's never going to satisfy him — he clearly won't be happy until every last bit of content that suggests "maybe the Poles weren't all that enthusiastic about killing Jews" is completely removed, from everything.

Even so, it wouldn't be so bad if he didn't keep calling it "the Holocaust" instead of "the Holocaust in Poland." It's like he's trying to make people think the "distortionists" want to quash criticism of (or even make excuses for) Nazi collaborators throughout Europe, which is clearly not the case at all.

[tarantino]

Can anyone provide a summary of why Icewhiz parted ways with this forum?

Viewing profile - Icewhiz
Because he's banned is probably the only answer you're going to get.

[Midsize Jake]

Can anyone provide a summary of why Icewhiz parted ways with this forum?

Viewing profile - Icewhiz
Because he's banned is probably the only answer you're going to get.

Surely we're not that averse to transparency... are we? Unfortunately, I'm not the one who banned him, Mr. Zoloft did that on July 26, 2020 — just over a month after Mr. Icewhiz had gotten his SanFranBan from the WMF. And he (Icewhiz, that is) didn't post much of anything here after that, so it could have been as simple as "he asked us to do it."

My recollection, though, was that he was still doing his thing on Twitter (doxxing people, mostly) well into July. So it was probably because of that.

[Volunteer Marek]

The 2019 Arbitration Committee case ended dismally for defenders of historical accuracy. Instead of sanctioning Volunteer Marek for restoring unreliable sources and defending misrepresentations of sources, the administrators accused Icewhiz himself of distortion. Absurdly, they charged him with BLP violations for saying that Ewa Kurek had an ‘outlandish interpretation’ of the ghettos and that her work was ‘questionable from historical and moral points of view,’ blind to the fact that these were correct statements based on secondary sources.Footnote278 The arbitrators also claimed that Icewhiz had made an ‘ethnically derogatory comment’ simply by using the word ‘Polocaust’ to describe Piotrowski’s argument, not realizing that Polish revisionists use this term to assert the equivalence between Polish and Jewish victimhood, and scholars use it to describe such revisionism.Footnote279 As a result of their skewed understanding, the arbitrators not only missed the manipulations taking place before their very eyes, but topic-banned Icewhiz.

It would be interesting hearing from the arbs who helped make the decisions in that case.

They didn't sanction me for "restoring unreliable sources and defending misrepresentations of sources" for the very simple reason that I did no such thing. They, rightly, sanctioned Icewhiz for these things (ironically they sanctioned me for pretty much saying that Icewhiz did those things, because "uncivil")

[Volunteer Marek]

What makes you think that? I just asume that he's posting as GizzyCatBella these days.

Didn't you make some promises recently what with your unblock and all? I mean, I know this is Wikipediocracy and all, not Wikipedia, but the fact that you are immediately showing up here kind of puts all that "I'll be good I promise" bullshit you fed people at ANI in perspective.

[Volunteer Marek]

It should be noted that Jan Grabowski is not exactly an uninvolved observer here. He was involved in on wiki disputes during the prelude to the Holocaust in Poland arbitration case, which also involved disputes over his Wikipedia biography.

That said, having read the paper, most of the authors criticisms are pretty perceptive and in my opinion correct. The way Piotrius, GCB and VM (which the paper explicitly calls out by name numerous times) have been able to essentially exhaust their opponents and force them out of the topic area really shows the weaknesses of the Wikipedia system, but as the paper notes, Icewhiz's sockpuppetry has really backfired and has strengthened their postion.

Which criticism is correct?

[Bezdomni]

Didn't you...

get sanctioned yet again (no personal comments) just hours after whimpering about the big bad homeless dude at WPO who was crimping your style by outing you as a screecher?

The fact is that *I* am not cited in that reliable source screeching "fuck" every second word to drown out any rational thoughts. After "Glaukopis", "fuck" is another good word to search for in the pdf in OP as one would not expect to find it given the august editorial board for that publication...

I agreed not to talk about you here, but will choose whether to ignore you or not when you address me.

[Midsize Jake]

Which reminds me, when Mr. Grabowski finally decides to identify Mr. Marek here towards the end of the paper, he refers to him as someone "who has identified himself in the past as" (real name), when in fact Mr. Marek only started doing that after Mr. Icewhiz had already publicly doxxed him, on Twitter and elsewhere. Rather deceptive, if you ask me.

[Volunteer Marek]

Hey SFR, am I free to comment?



Searching for Glaukopis, it seems that folks here were warned about this too.

PS: curiously, search does not dig up the clearest post about this right-wing source. I suggest searching the pdf in OP for Glaukopis.

That part of the article is a pretty good illustration of how full of shit it is. It claims that ".’ Volunteer Marek agreed that ‘this [journal] shouldn’t be a concern’ ". This is a fake quote. I did not say that the "journal" shouldn't be a concern. What I said is that it was a "self published source" in the same way that a university press is a "self published source". These clowns just took the fact that I used the phrase "shouldn't be a concern" and inserted "journal" in front of it to make it look like I said something I didn't.

I guess you could argue that Grabowski and Klein capture the "spirit" of my argument even as they lie about what I said specifically... except I actually OPPOSED using Glaukopis as a source and said it was unreliable for the info in question. So yeah, they're lying their asses off.

[Volunteer Marek]

Which reminds me, when Mr. Grabowski finally decides to identify Mr. Marek here towards the end of the paper, he refers to him as someone "who has identified himself in the past as" (real name), when in fact Mr. Marek only started doing that after Mr. Icewhiz had already publicly doxxed him, on Twitter and elsewhere. Rather deceptive, if you ask me.

Yup. They're doxxing me, just like Icewhiz did, as an intimidation tactic. With full knowledge that last time Icewhiz did it I got death threats and worse (Klein was informed about this in the interviews she did). I honestly have a trouble wrapping my head around how morally damaged and unethical Klein and Grabowski (not to mention Icewhiz) are. So much for academics being some sort of paragons of virtue.

FWIW Klein has an account on Wikipedia so this is a violation of WP:OUTTING.

[Hemiauchenia]

It should be noted that Jan Grabowski is not exactly an uninvolved observer here. He was involved in on wiki disputes during the prelude to the Holocaust in Poland arbitration case, which also involved disputes over his Wikipedia biography.

That said, having read the paper, most of the authors criticisms are pretty perceptive and in my opinion correct. The way Piotrius, GCB and VM (which the paper explicitly calls out by name numerous times) have been able to essentially exhaust their opponents and force them out of the topic area really shows the weaknesses of the Wikipedia system, but as the paper notes, Icewhiz's sockpuppetry has really backfired and has strengthened their postion.

Which criticism is correct?

Aside from the specifics on the content (which I might address later), the idea that disputes on Wikipedia are won by those who are the most persistent, rather than those who's positions are most accurate, is certainly true. I have some issues with the paper. In particular I think it undersells IceWhiz's disruptive behaviour, when in fact his ban was totally justfied.

[Volunteer Marek]

It should be noted that Jan Grabowski is not exactly an uninvolved observer here. He was involved in on wiki disputes during the prelude to the Holocaust in Poland arbitration case, which also involved disputes over his Wikipedia biography.

That said, having read the paper, most of the authors criticisms are pretty perceptive and in my opinion correct. The way Piotrius, GCB and VM (which the paper explicitly calls out by name numerous times) have been able to essentially exhaust their opponents and force them out of the topic area really shows the weaknesses of the Wikipedia system, but as the paper notes, Icewhiz's sockpuppetry has really backfired and has strengthened their postion.

Which criticism is correct?

Aside from the specifics on the content (which I might address later), the idea that disputes on Wikipedia are won by those who are the most persistent, rather than those who's positions are most accurate, is certainly true. I have some issues with the paper. In particular I think it undersells IceWhiz's disruptive behaviour, when in fact his ban was totally justfied.

I mean, that's true to some extent, but 1) that's a general observation on human interactions and decision making 2) it's not specific or particularly true in this area than others and most importantly 3) in this case the "most accurate" side is definitely not the Icewhiz side anyway

[Hemiauchenia]

Shira Klein is Chapmansh (T-C-L) btw. The account has mostly made edits related to wikiedu. I learned this because somebody made a post at WP:AN (T-H-L) about them and the paper, an infrequently active user named Jamarast (T-C-L). No idea who they are, possibly a troll looking to stir shit.

[Vice Cabal Leader]

Shira Klein is Chapmansh (T-C-L) btw. The account has mostly made edits related to wikiedu. I learned this because somebody made a post at WP:AN (T-H-L) about them and the paper, an infrequently active user named Jamarast (T-C-L). No idea who they are, possibly a troll looking to stir shit.

Note another similar account with very few edits making waves: Rhayailaina (T-C-L)

Is someone trying to create an impression that the Polish "cabal" is running their own socks? Or innocent coincidence? (That account makes some interesting points before being told to shut up).

Also. That latter incident, sock or not, makes for some worrisome food for thought about freedom of speech and censorship on Wikipedia these days: "editors who are not yet extended confirmed cannot participate in projectspace discussions, like the one at WP:RSN" - huh. I vaguely recall this rule was made to prevent socks, including Icewhiz's, from voting in RfCs or such, not to tell potentially new editors to "shut up" completely. I guess we are ages past AGFing anyone nowadays.

[Bezdomni]

In your reply to me you wrote:

I guess you could argue that Grabowski and Klein capture the "spirit" of my argument

You could, indeed.

even as they lie about what I said specifically...

They added the word "journal" in brackets to a direct quote that you made. It captures perfectly the spirit of your remarks at that point in the discussion. Eventually a more powerful MMORPG player convinced you your position was a losing one.

except I actually OPPOSED using Glaukopis as a source and said it was unreliable for the info in question.

No, Marek, you CONCEDED that the right-wing journal should not be used in what you tried to restrict to a "particular case", because you did not want to see it more generally deprecated, when you felt the wind gusting in that direction. At no point did you say that the journal was "unreliable".

what you actually said

While I think some people here are going way overboard and using this as an excuse to grossly violate our BLP policy by attacking historians they don't agree with (based on very partisan sources), I've become convinced (particularly by comments by User:JzG) that given the "extra" sourcing restrictions in this topic area, even though the journal has an editorial board staffed with professional historians and independent peer review, we shouldn't use it in this particular case.

So yeah, they're lying their asses off.

Let's provide our readers with the link to the RSN discussion where you, Molobo, and GCB defend the journal. This should allow people to get a direct idea of whether there is anyone being disingenuous here.

[ArmasRebane]

I think it's an accurate analysis in terms of how Wikipedia disputes can be won by attrition rather than reason, but I also can't particularly agree with their actual aims with regards to Wikipedia content. Feels like one of this cases where the emotion and self-righteousness goes beyond the facts.

Beyond that, it's a case of where an English-language encyclopedia would probably be very wise to err on the side of overrpresenting English content and underrepresenting non-English content, systemic biases be damned, because when the dispute is basically over another language and involves ethnic disputes a lot of people don't know the background behind, it's just encouraging spillover and POV forks galore that cannot be adequately warded against.

(Case in point, the Rescue by the Poles article.)

[Volunteer Marek]

In your reply to me you wrote:

I guess you could argue that Grabowski and Klein capture the "spirit" of my argument

You could, indeed.

even as they lie about what I said specifically...

They added the word "journal" in brackets to a direct quote that you made. It captures perfectly the spirit of your remarks at that point in the discussion. Eventually a more powerful MMORPG player convinced you your position was a losing one.

except I actually OPPOSED using Glaukopis as a source and said it was unreliable for the info in question.

No, Marek, you CONCEDED that the right-wing journal should not be used in what you tried to restrict to a "particular case", because you did not want to see it more generally deprecated, when you felt the wind gusting in that direction. At no point did you say that the journal was "unreliable".

what you actually said

While I think some people here are going way overboard and using this as an excuse to grossly violate our BLP policy by attacking historians they don't agree with (based on very partisan sources), I've become convinced (particularly by comments by User:JzG) that given the "extra" sourcing restrictions in this topic area, even though the journal has an editorial board staffed with professional historians and independent peer review, we shouldn't use it in this particular case.

So yeah, they're lying their asses off.

Let's provide our readers with the link to the RSN discussion where you, Molobo, and GCB defend the journal. This should allow people to get a direct idea of whether there is anyone being disingenuous here.

For the sake of this forum I am not going to engage with you again Sashi except to note that you're lying.

[MrErnie]

It almost seems like, 14 years later, some editors are still treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

[AndyTheGrump]

It almost seems like, 14 years later, some editors are still treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

[LargelyRecyclable]

My three cardinal rules on content were, never edit articles about Trump, the Holocaust, or gender ideology.

Served me pretty well for a decade or so.

Even tangentially touching on the Holocaust with all the WWII articles I edited put me in the Thunderdome, fighting off the perpetually aggrieved. It's just not worth it, and I have the ban to prove it.

[Giraffe Stapler]

My three cardinal rules on content were, never edit articles about Trump, the Holocaust, or gender ideology.

Served me pretty well for a decade or so.

Even tangentially touching on the Holocaust with all the WWII articles I edited put me in the Thunderdome, fighting off the perpetually aggrieved. It's just not worth it, and I have the ban to prove it.

It's a good start, but I would add a few areas if you want a quiet life on Wikipedia. There are some "no go" topic areas which are the exclusive domain of highly obsessive people:

• Anything transportation related - roads, trains, buses, etc
• Radio stations
• Voice actors (I don't know why)

[The Blue Newt]

My three cardinal rules on content were, never edit articles about Trump, the Holocaust, or gender ideology.

Served me pretty well for a decade or so.

Even tangentially touching on the Holocaust with all the WWII articles I edited put me in the Thunderdome, fighting off the perpetually aggrieved. It's just not worth it, and I have the ban to prove it.

It's a good start, but I would add a few areas if you want a quiet life on Wikipedia. There are some "no go" topic areas which are the exclusive domain of highly obsessive people:

• Anything transportation related - roads, trains, buses, etc
• Radio stations
• Voice actors (I don't know why)

To say nothing of any subject that naturally includes proper names…

[Volunteer Marek]

Ok this one is kind of hilarious (and illustrative) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... teer_Marek

Francois Robere posts on Callanecc's talk page trying to get me in trouble. Over a "civility restriction" that Callanecc recently imposed. On me. I respond. Then Francois Robere starts whinnying about how I am stalking them because I... "followed" them to Callanecc's talk page.

You can't make this up.

"How dare you defend yourself when I make false accusations against you??? How dare you interfere with me when I'm trying to pull wool over this guy's eyes!!???!!!"

I know I've expressed negative opinions about administrators before, but man, someone like FR must have a really really low opinion of Callenecc's intelligence if they think that this isn't transparent as hell.

[Arishok]

My three cardinal rules on content were, never edit articles about Trump, the Holocaust, or gender ideology.

I wholeheartedly agree with these rules for interacting with WP, except instead of "never edit" it's "never read".

[nableezy]

And now an arb case has been opened by the committee Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust_in_Poland (T-H-L)

[orangepi]

And now an arb case has been opened by the committee Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust_in_Poland (T-H-L)

Let's see if they figure out a better way than "separate sections + word limits" to manage this case. For many disputes that approach works, but it won't work here.

[Midsize Jake]

And now an arb case has been opened by the committee Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust_in_Poland (T-H-L)

Stupid move. Unless these people have genuinely become subject experts during the 2-3 years since the last Arbcom case, which they haven't, the best they can hope for is to merely update the already-abundant evidence that they have no business trying to deal with extremely complex sociopolitical issues themselves, i.e., without expensive third-party professional consultants (assuming anyone qualified as such can even be found).

[LargelyRecyclable]

And now an arb case has been opened by the committee Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust_in_Poland (T-H-L)

Stupid move. Unless these people have genuinely become subject experts during the 2-3 years since the last Arbcom case, which they haven't, the best they can hope for is to merely update the already-abundant evidence that they have no business trying to deal with extremely complex sociopolitical issues themselves, i.e., without expensive third-party professional consultants (assuming anyone qualified as such can even be found).

They let that cat out of the bag with the "German war effort" case. Nothing happened as a consequence other than some gnashing of teeth, so they'll just keep doing it. In the absence of outside intervention, the purview of bureaucracy only moves in one direction.

[DanMurphy]

My God. Arbcom. You magnificent morons.

[Vice Cabal Leader]

expensive third-party professional consultants (assuming anyone qualified as such can even be found).

Perhaps the author of the essay in question (Grabowski) might graciously accept that role, or recommend someone for it. What could go wrong?

[Bezdomni]

You would think it would be simple... you have Arbs put on their glasses and look at, say, diff # 978897567 mentioned in the article in order to see if it it does or does not show GCB adding a see also Aryanization (T-H-L) link to line 276 of the page Affirmative Action. (It does.)

Rather than letting the Polish crew do their standard bullhorn in the courtroom routine ("Icewhiz, Icewhiz, Icewhiz!"), put them in a soundproof box. Questions such as "Why, Gizzybella, do you think that people reading the affirmative action page should also see the Aryanization page? What relationship do you see between these two concepts?" can be directed at them. Otherwise, they should be "seen" and not "heard".

[Anroth]

My God. Arbcom. You magnificent morons.

Yup. Two guaranteed outputs of this:

Not enough people will be banned (whatever happens, one side or another will complain).
Because there isnt a snowball chance in hell Arbcom are going to do everything the writers of that 'paper' want, its going to paint a massive target on every member of Arbcom for harressment by Icewhiz-like characters.

Well done on that own goal Arbcom, well done.

[Midsize Jake]

You would think it would be simple... you have Arbs put on their glasses and look at, say, diff # 978897567 mentioned in the article in order to see if it it does or does not show GCB adding a see also Aryanization (T-H-L) link to line 276 of the page Affirmative Action. (It does.)

Did GizzyCatBella ever explain why (or how) she did that? Obviously it didn't go over well at the time; another user named Zezen (T-C-L) (since banned) had added it a few minutes earlier, and it had been reverted, and then Ms. Bella somehow re-added it about 45 minutes later as part of a much larger edit which otherwise was entirely to correct grammar and spelling. Is it possible it was some sort of "wiki-accident" or edit-conflict, perhaps because she was working from the un-reverted version and just didn't notice it?

Btw, some of the other articles listed in that same "See Also" section are highly dubious too... but that's no excuse, at least not in itself.

[Bezdomni]

It's true that other "see also" links on that page at the time were also problematic.

It's also true that just after Zezen edit-warred over that is the first and only time GCB edited that page rather far afield from her normal interests. It took half an hour for someone to revert her, so she did have time to proofread her contribution.

She and Zezen interacted with one another on quite a few pages closer to her normal interests, so... a logical follow-up question the Arbs could ask after she pleads "editing the wrong version" would be: "What brought you to this article?" This would establish whether she was aware of the problem before her contribution or not , and would allow her to explain her sudden interest in affirmative action.

[Konveyor Belt]

Typically for an ArbCom case you have some inciting incident, then a case request initiated by the parties. Here the incident is the publication of an article offwiki, but the actual onwiki incidents mentioned by in the article are old hat. Moreover, the case was not initiated by a party, but by ArbCom itself, which added every editor mentioned in the article (even in passing) as a party. Then you have arbs quickly voting to accept and basically saying "Yeah we should have had a case about this a while ago".

The goal of ArbCom is to resolve incidents, yet here the incident cannot be meaningfully resolved, as the incitors (Grabowski and Klein) are not on Wikipedia and thus out of their remit. The only ones who can be substantively affected by this case are the parties, and thus they are now in the crosshairs of ArbCom despite not asking for the case. By the structure of this case, the parties will be left to fight amongst themselves, submitting as much evidence and slinging as much mud as possible in the hopes of escaping (relatively) unscathed. It seems like ArbCom is more interested in staging a gladiator battle than soothing problems in this area.

[Vice Cabal Leader]

the incident cannot be meaningfully resolved, as the incitors (Grabowski and Klein) are not on Wikipedia and thus out of their remit

A very valid point. Although the ArbCom could, in theory, at least comment on outside parties. They can't be sanctioned, obviously, but they can be commented on (commended, cautioned, warned, advised, endorsed, whatever). Has such a thing ever happened before?

[Konveyor Belt]

the incident cannot be meaningfully resolved, as the incitors (Grabowski and Klein) are not on Wikipedia and thus out of their remit

A very valid point. Although the ArbCom could, in theory, at least comment on outside parties. They can't be sanctioned, obviously, but they can be commented on (commended, cautioned, warned, advised, endorsed, whatever). Has such a thing ever happened before?

I couldn't find any. The ArbCom cases that I can remember that got the most media coverage/outside attention were Chelsea Manning and Gamergate, but nothing was said by ArbCom towards any outside forces in either case. More importantly, there have been countless times that media have written negatively about Wkipedia without any ArbCom case examining them, even when there's been outing. That's why I believe this isn't really about the article, it's just a pretext for getting a case going.

[Volunteer Marek]

You would think it would be simple... you have Arbs put on their glasses and look at, say, diff # 978897567 mentioned in the article in order to see if it it does or does not show GCB adding a see also Aryanization (T-H-L) link to line 276 of the page Affirmative Action. (It does.)

Did GizzyCatBella ever explain why (or how) she did that? Obviously it didn't go over well at the time; another user named Zezen (T-C-L) (since banned) had added it a few minutes earlier, and it had been reverted, and then Ms. Bella somehow re-added it about 45 minutes later as part of a much larger edit which otherwise was entirely to correct grammar and spelling. Is it possible it was some sort of "wiki-accident" or edit-conflict, perhaps because she was working from the un-reverted version and just didn't notice it?

Btw, some of the other articles listed in that same "See Also" section are highly dubious too... but that's no excuse, at least not in itself.

So of course this is one of those perennial "gotcha" diffs that Icewhiz acolytes like Bezdomni always bring up. It came up in an AE request:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... zyCatBella

Bezdomni 100% knows this since they obsessively follow everything I or Gizzy or Piotrus do, so they could've mention it but they didn't. Looking at that AE request you can see that Gizzy explained it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source]

Now, Bezdomni is trying to pre-empt the obvious response and answer to your question ("Rather than letting the Polish crew do their standard bullhorn in the courtroom routine ("Icewhiz, Icewhiz, Icewhiz!")") precisely because he knows that the answer is, well, Icewhiz. The AE report against Gizzy with this diff was filed by AsralLeap. Yup, Icewhiz sock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... stral_Leap. Bezdomni doesn't tell you that either.

And it seems that Gizzy thought she was reverting another Icewhiz sock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... /Affinaffi when she made that edit so she restored the other editor's (Zezen) changes. As it turned out that other editor was sketchy as hell too and Gizzy should've been more careful. And in that second comment I link above she explains it was an accident and disavows both the edit and the editor Zezen.

These are the kind of stupid games and tricks that you are constantly subject to in this topic area or even, when you're only associated with it (Gizzy was not editing this topic area at the time due to a topic ban). But you know, "Wikipedia is not a battleground"

[Volunteer Marek]

Typically for an ArbCom case you have some inciting incident, then a case request initiated by the parties. Here the incident is the publication of an article offwiki, but the actual onwiki incidents mentioned by in the article are old hat. Moreover, the case was not initiated by a party, but by ArbCom itself, which added every editor mentioned in the article (even in passing) as a party. Then you have arbs quickly voting to accept and basically saying "Yeah we should have had a case about this a while ago".

The goal of ArbCom is to resolve incidents, yet here the incident cannot be meaningfully resolved, as the incitors (Grabowski and Klein) are not on Wikipedia and thus out of their remit. The only ones who can be substantively affected by this case are the parties, and thus they are now in the crosshairs of ArbCom despite not asking for the case. By the structure of this case, the parties will be left to fight amongst themselves, submitting as much evidence and slinging as much mud as possible in the hopes of escaping (relatively) unscathed. It seems like ArbCom is more interested in staging a gladiator battle than soothing problems in this area.

Klein is on Wikipedia. I don't know why they didn't add her as party, but added editors like Poeticbent that have been gone for more than 3 years.

[Bezdomni]

diff # 978897567

So of course this is one of those perennial "gotcha" diffs that Icewhiz acolytes like Bezdomni always bring up. It came up in an AE request:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... zyCatBella

[...]

Bezdomni 100% knows this since they obsessively follow everything I or Gizzy or Piotrus do

Nope, I didn't know that. It was also only the day after this Grabowski-Klein article was published, for example, that I learned she and Piotrus had succeeded in deleting the New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship page when nobody was looking. 13 nov 2022

Fun how GCB didn't mention she'd unsuccessfully nominated it before when the article had a slightly different name. 7 March 2021 (Piotrus does about 36 hours later...)

Clever rename, especially given that that article is cited in a Dec. 2020 review of the conference proceedings and so the links now resolve to a different page entirely. (see here, fn#14)

NB: Grabowski & Klein didn't mention this. I was looking at this thread (§) when I discovered it... it just reminds me of the story they tell of the 2018

Polish Holocaust Law

In July 2020, Piotrus purged a well-sourced paragraph on Poland’s 2018 Holocaust Law from the Wikipedia article ‘Historical Negationism,’ claiming that none of the sources used the exact phrase ‘historical negationism.’309 The text was restored soon after, on the grounds that the sources in the paragraph used terms such as ‘denial’ and ‘denialism,’ synonymous with ‘negationism,’310 but Volunteer Marek deleted it once more in November 2021, this time without anyone noticing.311

311 = diff

Now, Bezdomni is trying to pre-empt the obvious response and answer to your question ("Icewhiz, Icewhiz, Icewhiz!") precisely because he knows that the answer is, well, Icewhiz.

So let's see if I've got your complaint straight. ("Icewhiz, Icewhiz, Icewhiz!") made GCB go to affirmative action for the first time ever and restore Zezen's comparison of affirmative action to Aryanization? How exactly did he do that? How did she decide it was ("Icewhiz, Icewhiz, Icewhiz!") who was reverting Zezen's comparison? Is it just a coincidence that Zezen was at 3RR when she helpfully tipped the balance?

And it seems that Gizzy thought she was reverting another Icewhiz sock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... /Affinaffi when she made that edit so she restored the other editor's (Zezen) changes. As it turned out that other editor was sketchy as hell too and Gizzy should've been more careful. And in that second comment I link above she explains it was an accident and disavows both the edit and the editor Zezen.

These are the kind of stupid games and tricks that you are constantly subject to in this topic area or even, when you're only associated with it (Gizzy was not editing this topic area at the time due to a topic ban). But you know, "Wikipedia is not a battleground"

I am glad to hear she disavowed the edit!

Note though that if she admitted to intentionally reverting Affinaffi as you say she did, it was crystal clear to her exactly what she was reverting. (look at the diffs preceding hers, there is only one word being fought over, not a whole host of "changes" as VM writes above)

Further question: What was accomplished by GCB tag-teaming with her Polish buddy?

ps: I misunderstood who VM was calling "sketchy as hell" in an earlier version of this. He was indeed referring to Zezen, I believe.

[NAC]

Looks like this thread has become a spat between Marek and Bezdomni.

Everyone has to chill.

Why do people even get involved in this area? It's a mess.

What's up with Icewhiz, anyway? I remember having consistently negative impressions of him when I saw him on-wiki, and I know he got banned for doxxing/harassment/sockpuppetry, but apparently he's doing other off-wiki stuff now?

Actually, don't answer that. It'll just lead to more drama. There's no way any of this ends well. If I was Arbcom I would run away from this as fast as possible, but I suppose this is what they signed up to deal with.

[Midsize Jake]

...There's no way any of this ends well.

I'm tempted to agree, but in theory, there could be mass resignations.

[Vice Cabal Leader]

...There's no way any of this ends well.

I'm tempted to agree, but in theory, there could be mass resignations.

Of ArbCom members? As in, that would be a good thing?