User talk:Tatzref

Tatzref, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tatzref! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Dathus (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

may 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

Tatzref, thank you for your valuable participation and helpful information. Much appreciated.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I heartily second the sentiment. I hope you will continue sharing your knowledge of the subject matter both here and in other venues, so that the truth may out. Nihil novi (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank your for your support. I am committed to entering information for which there are reliable sources. I do not believe in censoring or suppressing information for ideological reasons. Tatzref (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely, I'm not sure how to contact you. I would greatly appreciate your support regarding my proposed post under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Poland,_1944%E2%80%931946 This is the revised text that I propose to submit minus the footnotes: START A restitution law “On Abandoned Real Estates” was enacted on May 6, 1945 to permit dispossessed property owners, or their relatives and heirs, including those residing outside of Poland, to reclaim privately owned property. This simplified inheritance procedure remained in place until the end of 1948, with an expedited process (courts had to examine every motion within 21 days, and many claims were processed the day they were filed), minimal costs and relaxed formalities. Poles willingly served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. These procedures were well known. Jewish law firms outside Poland specialized in submitting applications on behalf of non-residents. Official records confirm that many thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed without any significant problems, for example, 291 applications in Zamość and 240 in Włodawa. Almost all of these properties were then sold to Poles. According to the American Jewish Year Book, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control [i.e., nationalized], proceeded more or less smoothly.” Given the lax criteria, there were cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims, which gave rise to concerns on the part of the courts and the Central Committee of Jews in Poland. Since buildings were often destroyed, properties were indebted, and property values were low because of the uncertain political situation (fear of nationalization), many Jews chose not to make applications for restitution.ENDTatzref (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

You seem quite well versed in Chodakiewicz / Mark Paul's work. Are you somehow connected?Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you present an example where such attack is carried out Icewhiz?? Otherwise please stop this of intimidations.GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Icewhiz (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note this applies to talk-pages too, e.g. this edit making unsourced negative assertions on a BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Corrected error in topic area in the alert, my apoligies.Icewhiz (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Minor tag

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. In particular this [1], but also a number of others.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Your recent editing history at Jedwabne pogrom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Please note that it is Icewhiz who is involved in an edit war with me. Icewhiz is systemtically deleting virtually every text that I add.Tatzref (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"... and Icewhiz are topic-banned from the history of Poland in World War II (1933-45) for three months for treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sandstein 20:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)"Tatzref (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank and a little advice

Tatzref, I would like to thank you for your valuable contributions once again, and at the same time, as a more endured user, I need to deliver you a little tip. I know that you are not guilty of such yet but just in case, since I noticed tricks launched already. Please try not to revert edits of others more than once or twice per 24h period, even if your edits are being reverted several times by the same challenging party. Instead, explain your objections on the related talk page. Excellent commentaries of yours are as worthy as an actual entry into the article. Also, comment only on the subject bypassing discussing the editor and never (never) personally attack others (labeling them as dull, etc.) Such faults might be immediately reported, and force lead to bans or blocks. Once again thank you and welcome to WikipediaGizzyCatBella (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely for your support. Since becoming a Wikipedia contributor about a week ago, Icewhiz has been systematically deleting all of my texts, even though they are referenced to reliable sources, for entirely spurious reasons. He has warned me not to undo what he has done. Can he do this? If not, why is it being tolerated? He has even issued a copyright violation notice because one of my texts was similar to a source that he is determined to delete (Mark Paul), yet at the same time he posts something where he cuts and pastes from a published book (Weinbaum, The Plunder of Jewish Property). After I deleted that post, it was restored. Why was no warning issued in his case? Since I am new I picked up Icewhiz's bad habits, not realizing that it's not the accepted practice. How was I to know, when he does it all the time and the editors don't take issue with it, stop him from doing so and report him. Tatzref (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, he should not have done this. His misconduct might look that it is being tolerated, but eventually, all this will catch up with him one day. But I'm more concerned with you as a new user. Please do not mimic the behavior of your opponents and stick to the rules. Stay calm, be careful with excessive reverting (1-2 times max per 24h) comment on a subject, discuss lots on related talk pages, don’t personally attack anyone (critical), relax and most importantly have fun editing..GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification and support. Icewhiz's inteference with my postings has been relentless since I joined and is not easing up. Rather than reverting (undoing) I will simply post the text again, if this allowed. I'm new to this and did not expect the onslaught of hostility/negativity and, apparently, rule breaking. I try to back to everything I write, but I also have to address his arguments head on, hence the appearance of "arguing".Tatzref (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

While reposting content, please keep in mind WP:3RR. A lot of new editors get themselves blocked because they forget about it or think this is not enforced Also check WP:BRD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Another perspective

Problematic topics on Wikipedia tend to suffer from an onslaught of editors who have their own WP:AGENDAS. Some use poor quality sources to make WP:FRINGE claims; others argue based on their own "original research". Others yet go as far as creating multiple WP:SOCKPUPPET accounts, to give the impression of WP:CONSENSUS (so when a new editor appears out of the blue and dives right in to a contentious discussion it raises some alarms, which is why Icewhiz tagged some of your comments with "this editor has had little or no activity outside this topic area"). In most cases you should assume good faith - other editors are not your enemies, and most make a genuine attempt to contribute. You would do best to learn from some of the more experienced editors, including those you disagree with, if only so you can become a more effective editor within this complicated system. One last thing you should keep in mind: You will be wrong on occasion; know to accept it, modify your beliefs, and move on. François Robere (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

Wikipedia has all kinds of formatting tools; unfortunately they're all manual. I've reformatted a recent message of yours - check it out. Also see Wikipedia:Indentation, Newline and Template:Quote. François Robere (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Tatzref (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

One of those formatting tools and such is posting in a new line. This requires either a line break of indentation. See what I did (that's a WP:DIFF, btw)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

KPK Toronto[edit source]

Hi, I noticed that you occasionally add materials cited to KPK Toronto, i.e. here, and I wonder if you are in any way affiliated with this organisation, or any other related advocacy group. If you could let me know, that would be great. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Hi, you appear to continue to promote KPK's materials such as here. Could you please answer my question? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Hi, I would appreciate an answer still. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman: It is the right of editors to be anonymous. At the same time, of course, WP:COI recommends disclosure. Since COI is generally written to deal with paid-for advocacy, disclosing one's associations with non-profits is more in the grey zone, particularly the closer it takes us to one's views that are often seen as private. As I said several times, should be, for example, demand from everyone editing a page related to religion to disclose their believes, church membership, donations, etc.? Should priests be required to self-identify? Etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC) I’ve not asked Tatzref to identify himself; merely whether there’s a WP:COI. It’s a fairly straightforward question. K.e.coffman(talk) 00:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC) COI concerns[edit source] Hi Tatzref, I would appreciate an answer. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946

Please move the removed text into the body of the article.Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC) I followed this advice, which is also posted in the article. I created a new section called "population movements" to include all the statistical information. But it was deleted by someone יניב הורון who keeps deleting my posts. They also deleted reliably sourced information about Jewish migration from Israel to Poland, some of which had been posted by another person and had been there for some time. This is very disturbing.Tatzref (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of the Jews in Poland. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring ??

Since joining Wikipedia almost every article contribution I have made -- all of them reliably sourced -- has been subjected to serial deletions by in tandem strikes.Tatzref (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Currently there is an attempted "lynching" going on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GizzyCatBella over valid objections about their propriety: [Just to make it clear: I filed this SPI request for the reasons cited, and nothing else. This isn't some sort of "gaming" or "battleground mentality", at least not on my end. ...]Tatzref (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland, part 2

Please read WP:ONUS, as well as WP:PROPORTION. You need to build consensus on the talk page to include the content you want to add. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland, part 3

Read WP:ONUS. Either demonstrate consensus to include the material, or it stays out. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Three editors have contributed to the text on medieval Jewish traders that you removed, including the slave trade activities and conflict with the Church both of which have an extensive scholarship. Onus does not mean unanimity.Tatzref (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Information about trafficking of Jewish women is mainstream and already found in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwi_Migdal "Zwi Migdal (Yiddish: צבי מגדל‎, IPA: [ˈtsvɪ mɪɡˈdal]) was an organized crime group created by Jews from Warsaw, involved in the trafficking of Jewish women from the shtetls of Central Europe for sexual slavery and forced prostitution." https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%93%D7%9C There is a large and growing scholarship on the 1905 pimp pogrom: Scott Ury, Barricades and Banners: The Revolution of 1905 and the Transformation of Warsaw Jewry (Stanford University Press, 2012), 126–129; Antony Polonsky, The Jews in Poland and Russia, vol. 2: 1881 to 1914 (Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2010)Tatzref (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Your recent editing history at History of the Jews in Poland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Discuss this on the talk page or leave it out. Waiting a few days does not give you the right to restart trying to insert this material without discussion. Meters (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I see there had been some discussion on the talk page; however, I do not see a consensus to include your material. It is edit warring to continue to restore your preferred version of the material in the face of multiple editors undoing you and contesting the material on the talk page. Meters (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Move review: Paradisus Judaeorum

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yaniv's talk & Icewhiz's defamatory remarks

Hi, I reverted you because while you can certainly make that argument on sourcing, doing it on the article talk page is much better than picking a fight on a blocked user's talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't realize it was inappropriate to post it there - that is, after all, where the defamatory remarks were made by a staunch supporter of Yaniv's - and couldn't understand why my signature didn't appear at the end of my remarks and why my remarks disappeared. I would appreciate your guidance as to where this should be posted for follow-up as a complaint. TATZREF

Icewhiz’s allegation that the text purged by Yaniv (יניב הורון), as allegedly “antisemitic vandalism,” in fact constitutes “WP:HOAX material - blatant and libelous misrepresentation of sources” is every bit as offensive and baseless as Yaniv’s. Wikipedia defines “hoax” as “a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth.” Set out below is the impugned text in question. No cogent evidence had been presented that any statement it contains is a “hoax” or that the sources (pages of publications) cited do not support those statements. Until Icewhiz produces such evidence serious consideration should be given to blocking his participation in Polish-related issues for the same reason that Yaniv has been blocked.

IMPUGNED TEXT

Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946

Property claims and restitution

A restitution law "On Abandoned Real Estates" of May 6, 1945 allowed property owners who had been dispossessed, or their relatives and heirs, whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property under a simplified inheritance procedure. The law remained in effect until the end of 1948. An expedited court process with minimal costs was put in place to handle claims. Applications had to be examined within 21 days, and many claims were processed the day they were filed. Poles often served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. Jewish law firms and agencies outside Poland specialized in submitting applications on behalf of non-residents. Properties were also transferred and sold by Jewish owners outside this process.[23]. The American Jewish Year Book reported, at the time, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”[24] Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed, for example, more than 520 properties were reclaimed in two county towns of Lublin province alone (281 applications in Zamość, and 240 in Włodawa - some applications involved multiple properties).[25] Given the lax criteria, there were a number of cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims.[26]

The American Jewish Year Book for 1947-1948 is available online for anyone to examine at http://www.ajcarchives.org/main.php?GroupingId=10082;http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1947_1948_10_PolandSoviet.pdf Furthermore, Icewhiz’s claim that Mark Paul propagates hoaxes such as the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” has no merit. The relevant text, found in Mark Paul’s “Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy,” is available online (http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-9.doc). The section headed “Recognition and (In)Gratitude” compiles many statements by Jews regarding Polish rescue efforts, some expressing gratitude, others not – hence the ambivalent wording of the heading. An example of the latter is former Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s infamous remarks, “What concerns the Jews, the Poles have been collaborating with the Germans. … only at most one hundred people have been helping Jews. … Polish priests did not save even one Jewish life.” Icewhiz (and Joanna Michlic, whom he cites) may not like to be reminded of such statements but they are part of the historical record. Mark Paul’s “Patterns of Cooperation, Collaboration and Betrayal: Jews, Germans and Poles in Occupied Poland during World War II” was recognized recently as an important study in a major publication of the prestigious Jagiellonian University: Wymuszona współpraca czy zdrada? Wokół przypadków kolaboracji Żydów w okupowanym Krakowie (Kraków: Universitas, 2018), at p. 34. The author, Alicja Jarkowska-Natkaniec, has impeccable academic credentials: http://fellowships.claimscon.org/fellows/cohort-xi-academic-year-2018-2019/jarkowska-natkaniec-alicja/

AE

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No action taken (without prejudice to another admin taking action). Sandstein 07:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

On February 24, 2019, Yaniv (יניב הורון) was blocked indefinitely from editing "for Tendentious editing across multiple topic areas and time frames” (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91_%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F&oldid=884873194). This occurred after it came to the attention of the administrator that Yaniv had deleted text of mine, as allegedly constituting “antisemitic vandalism,” in “History of the Jews in Poland,” under the heading “Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property. Yaniv's action was found to be a “personal attack” and “a chilling tactic designed to stifle opposition, as documented above, and is textbook tendentious editing.” In his strenuous defense of Yaniv, Icewhiz stated: “Yaniv’s description of the content may have been overly frank, however the problem is with the content itself - not commentary thereof. That suchWP:HOAX material - blatant and libelous misrepresentation of sources (and yes - this is a WP:BLP issue towards the miscited authors - Grabowski&Libionka) - is inserted onto the English Wikipedia is shameful, and that users get blocked for attempting to rectify this - is even more shameful. … There are other editors here who should have been blocked here. As it stands - the English Wikipedia would seem to accept such content, while blocking those who would call it out.”Tatzref (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Query

Hi, I would still like to know if a. there's a COI with the Polish-Canadian Congress (KPK); and b. what do you mean when you say that "Collaborating with one of these states [Soviet Union] in furthering these goals constituted de facto collaboration with the other [Nazi Germany]." (Since there was no comment about this at WP:AE, perhaps you could answer here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Response to Post Placed on Sandstein's User Page

Response to post by K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein,

1. I am well aware of Wikipedia’s COI guidelines, and respect them. Has K.e.coffman been designated as Wikipedia’s enforcement arm in this regard? He/she appears to have assumed that function by reverting recent edits of mine, for example, in the articles on “Jan Grabowski” and “Maus,” because I don’t respond to his queries:

06:05, 3 March 2019 diff hist -1,500‎ Jan Grabowski (historian) ‎ Reverted to revision 885890045 by K.e.coffman (talk): Please address COI / NPOV queries before editing contentious topics, for example here:User_talk:Sandstein#Tatzref_AE (TW) Tag: Undo

05:11, 5 March 2019 diff hist -129‎ Maus ‎ Undid revision 886005122 by Tatzref (talk) -- Please address COI / NPOV queries before editing contentious topics, for example here: User_talk:Tatzref#Query currentTag: Undo

Is this appropriate? If not, shouldn’t it be sanctioned? It will become clear why I choose not to chat with him/her on my talk page.

2. Since I joined Wikipedia in May 2018, Icewhiz and Yaniv (יניב הורון) have been systematically deleting my edits, often for entirely spurious reasons. (Yaniv was recently blocked indefinitely from editing for “Tendentious editing across multiple topic areas and time frames.”) K.e.coffman has tagged along, helping them in this endeavour. For example, Bogdan Musial’s 2009 book “Sowjetische Partisanen 1941-1944: Mythos und Wirklichkeit,” published by the prestigious publishing house Ferdinand Schoningh, which contains information about the Bielski partisans, was removed from the article “Bielski Partisans” by several kindred editors, among them K.e.coffman, even after I pointed out that Yehuda Bauer, a leading Israeli Holocaust historian, called this book by a professional historian “a most important contribution” to the academic literature in a review in Yad Vashem Studies. The various reasons they gave to eliminate this book included: “part of a POV-pushing exercise” (Pinkbeast) “highly questionable fringe” (Icewhiz), “in foreign language” (K.e.Coffman), “non-English fringe work” (Icewhiz). This was done even though the reading list included works by a journalist and non-professional historian whom they liked and the notes included several Polish language newspaper articles.

02:55, 28 May 2018‎ Pinkbeast (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,792 bytes) -137‎ . . (And remove this one, given it's part of the same POV-pushing exercise.)

06:16, 28 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,929 bytes) +137‎ . . (Highly questionable fringe SPS.)

15:03, 28 May 2018‎ Tatzref (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,929 bytes) +137‎ . . (→‎Further reading: Musial's book was called “a most important contribution” by historian Yehuda Bauer in Yad Vashem Studies)

00:30, 30 May 2018‎ K.e.coffman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,592 bytes) -1,337‎ . . (rm per wp:further - in foreign lang; dead links; personal web sites; etc.) (undo)

23:05, 31 May 2018‎ Tatzref (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,251 bytes) +659‎ . . (→‎Further reading) [INCLUDING FULL REFERENCE TO BAUER’S REVIEW]

07:16, 1 June 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,592 bytes) -659‎ . . (Undid revision 843878281 by GizzyCatBella (talk) No consensus to include this non-English fringe work) (undo) Tag: Undo

It would be difficult to find a more clear-cut case of POV-pushing.

3. I too have concerns about these editors. How are they linked? (They are staunch supporters of each other, even the blocked Yaniv.) How is that Icewhiz can singlehandedly perform all of these edits without assistance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Icewhiz How is it that he/she can devote what appears to be a pattern of regular weekday work hours (see Time Card) without remuneration: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/icewhiz Whom is he/she affiliated with?

4. It would be helpful if K.e.coffman set out the quotation found in GizzyCatBella’s talk page in full: “The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies from August 1939 to June 1941. They acted in concert to destroy the Polish state and its leadership, and to persecute Poles. Collaborating with one of these states in furthering these goals constituted de facto collaboration with the other.” Furthermore, the matter has been discussed at length here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust/Archive_3#Use_of_self-published_(?)_material_by_Mark_Paul I don’t intend to rehash the discussion, nor do I believe I have to account to K.e.coffman.

This is yet another example where it appears he/she has taken an enforcement role upon him/herself. I would note, however, that Alicja Jarkowska-Natkaniec, a respected scholar associated with the Jagiellonian University’s history department, recently recognized Mark Paul’s “Patterns of Cooperation, Collaboration and Betrayal: Jews, Germans and Poles in Occupied Poland during World War II” as an important and balanced study in her monograph “Wymuszona współpraca czy zdrada? Wokół przypadków kolaboracji Żydów w okupowanym Krakowie” (Kraków: Universitas, 2018), at p. 33-34. That author has impeccable academic credentials: http://fellowships.claimscon.org/fellows/cohort-xi-academic-year-2018-2019/jarkowska-natkaniec-alicja/. Tatzref (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone Posing as Tatzref on Stormfront

Coincidental with the attacks in Wikipedia, it has been brought to my attention that someone is posing as Tatzref on Stormfront: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1273151/ This an obvious ploy to attempt to discredit Tatzref. Tatzref (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Are you partially referring to yourself in the third person? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The plot thickens:Tatzref (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

SEE [REDACTED - Oshwah]

CUT & PASTE BELOW

[REDACTED - Oshwah]

END OF CUT & PASTE

Your recent messages and comments

Hi Tatzref - I'm reaching out to you here regarding the messages you've left today in relation to concerns over impersonation and a recent ban that was repealed. The external link you provided in these messages (the Reddit link) had to be removed and suppressed, as they contained the non-public private information belonging to another editor that he/she did not disclose on Wikipedia publicly. Please do not add this link anywhere on Wikipedia again, as this constitutes outing of another editor's personal identifiable information.

There's no need to worry or be concerned that you're in trouble or anything; You probably weren't aware of the information and what you were accidentally doing; I'm just need to bring it to your attention so that you're aware. So long as you don't post the reddit link again, you'll be just fine and you can edit and do what you normally do. Just understand that Wikipedia's policy on outing is taken as one of most serious policies we have, and it is one of the most severe policies that you can violate on Wikipedia (it usually results in immediate indefinite blocks and other actions).

If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Thanks! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Formatting refs

I appreciate you add book refs and page numbers. But please consider using Wikipedia:Citation templates. For books, a very easy way to do so is to get a page link from google books, for example ([2]) and feed it to this tool: [3]. It creates a code you can paste in the article (it's better then the Visual Editor citation tool as it recognizes google books page numbers, which our built-in tool does not). This produces a better ref, see [4]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019 edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Canadian Polish Congress shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you are the one who is deleting all my edits wholesale including sourced information:

21:23, 9 May 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ 10,942 bytes -29‎ Views - restored scholarly book by Patryk Polec removed by Icewhiz under false pretenses; removed nonRS that contains a third party attribution (not a direct quote)

21:03, 9 May 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ 10,971 bytes +324‎ History: Solidarity Movement - restored reliably sourced information removed by Icewhiz under false pretenses

20:43, 9 May 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ 9,889 bytes +414‎ History: Katyn monument - Restored reliably sourced information removed by Icewhiz under false pretenses

Please explain each of these these reverts.Tatzref (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision listed

The proposed decision in the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case has been released, and it contains one or more findings of fact or remedies which relate to you. Please review this proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI

You're on ANI.[5] François Robere (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely for efforts toward and calling for the outing of Wikipedia editors. Note that even banned editors enjoy full privacy rights here. El_C 16:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tatzref (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am writing to request a reconsideration and reversal of the indefinite block stemming from my October 8 & 9, 2019 posts regarding Benjakob’s Haaretz article. The article was posted (linked) by François Robere. Since it discloses the personal information of three Wikipedia editors, it would appear that doing so violates the policy on posting of personal information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information). In any event, I did not disclose the personal information of Icewhiz, nor did I attempt to do so. What I was doing was commenting on an article that alleges wild conspiracy theories such as “a widespread Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists” (François Robere’s words) enjoying “an unholy alliance with editors affiliated with the American left” (according to Icewhiz). My point was, and perhaps this may have misconstrued due to some awkward wording, that the author of the article should not have afforded Icewhiz the benefit of anonymity. In my view, it was unethical not to have disclosed the identity of his main informant, Icewhiz, while divulging the identity of the three Wikipedia editors that were called out. Moreover, Icewhiz, who was blocked for off-wiki harassment of multiple editors, should have been subjected to the same level of scrutiny as the alleged conspirators. Since Icewhiz went public with his complaints and the article was being promoted in Wikipedia, I don’t see why his views and activities are immune from comment. If I did contravene the Wikipedia policy in any way it was unintentional, as the policy does not address this situation, and I apologize for having done so. Had I received a warning, which I believe would have been the appropriate course of action, I would have taken heed. If I am unblocked, I undertake not to discuss the matter further.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment by Piotrus

For what it's worth, I endorse the request. It is plausible Tatzref is not familiar with WP:OUTING. Given that (I can only AGF his comment since the offending diffs are oversighted) he did not reveal any outing information, just asked for them (or rather, suggested that a newspaper should include this...), a warning would likely be sufficient. An indef block for suggesting that an off-wiki site should discuss private information on some editors is a bit over the top (particularly in the context of said editor being blocked for harassing others, tu quoque fallacy is hardly our policy, but it is an understandable mistake for a new editor to make, one that likely merits a warning for first offense, but hardly an indef). And since I presume he will read the OUTING policy if he hasn't yet, and will be more careful in the future, I think his request should be considered. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

He should be aware of it, as he was made aware of it by an admin in a couple of different places,[6][7] but continued making them nevertheless.[8][9] François Robere (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if he was aware of it, I still don't think that saying on wiki that some editor's real ID should have been disclosed in a newspaper piece is violating said policy (through I do agree it is not a constructive line of reasoning, and hence I believe this incident should've been resolved with a simple warning). He was not outing anyone, just discussing what, hypothetically, other sources should do. We are not in a business of sanctioning thoughtcrime, I hope. Also, it is clearly ok to link to a newspaper piece that both names at least two Wikipedians (one being myself) and that in turns links directly to a hate site that contains outing information and death threats directed at others (including myself). I don't see how anything he did is worse than that (i.e. suggesting that said newspaper should have outed someone else as well). I will ping the admins who were involved in those incidents since they may offer more context/guidance (and this block appeal still needs addressing). @Oshwah and TonyBallioni: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

He did more than that - he repeatedly implied that users are engaged in paid editing.

You should also ping El_C, the blocking admin. François Robere (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The user has also attached (now rev-deleted) urls that seemed highly suspicious. At any case, it came across as more than a suggestion to out that editor, which it also was, explicitly — but also, actively, as an effort toward that end. El_C 17:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

On closer examination the wikiscan url (whose finding were used to imply paid editing on the part of the user targeted) is actually fine, so I retract the above. It did seem suspicious at the time and was factored into the block (which I, nonetheless, am still not inclined to lift), so the admin reviewing this unblock request may take that lapse into account. El_C 17:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hell, no

Tatzref has repeatedly cast aspersions on Icewhiz and other editors in the past (see here for three such occasions). It is an SPA dedicated to spreading contentious and fallacious narratives by the likes of nationalist author Marek Jan Chodakiewicz,[10] and the antisemitic Mark Paul[11] and Gilad Atzmon[12] (his first and last edits, respectively).[13][14] Even we he does cite RS, he distorts them beyond recognitions.[15] If anyone even considers unblocking this editor, consider what that would mean for Wikipedia's veracity in the "post-Haaretz"[16] age. François Robere (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point. The Haaretz smear piece, co-written by an editor indef blocked for harassment, is a good litmus test. There are editors who don't like things like harassing, doxing, and accusing other editors - like Tatzref. And then there are those who try to promote it. Which type of editors are more constructive to this project, and less prone to making a battlefield? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The "Haaretz smear piece" quotes Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss, and was cited by at least nine outlets including Corriere della Sera, Deutschlandfunk, ABC and Kan 11. Shame on you for defending this editor while attacking RS. François Robere (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It also quotes me, and I said it clearly that I am misquoted there. So we can wonder if those others are misquoted there as well? Other outlets picked up on only the non-controversial parts of the story, without misquotations and such, so are not that relevant. Also, those are experts on history, but hardly on Wikipedia. While the historians cited in Haaretz may be experts in their fields, it’s clear they lack even a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works. Grabowski claims that there are “hundreds” of Polish volunteers controlling English Wikipedia, and suggest, laughably, that they have been recruited by the Polish government. Seeing as how there are maybe four or five actual Polish editors present, his claim is completely detached from reality, and he is simply not RS for these kinds of claims. Likewise Dreyfus’ primary complaint seems to be about info included in an info box. But this is information which is always included in info boxes (for example the Warsaw Uprising article lists South African Air Force in list of combatants), so there’s nothing exceptional here, regardless of whether you agree with how Wikipedia does infoboxes. And let's not forget that while the Haaretz piece does cite a couple scholars to give itself an air of legitimacy the bulk of information concerning Wikipedia comes from an editor who was banned for harassment. The “shame” belongs to the Wikipedia editors who continue to defend him and keep targeting his victims, perpetuating the WP:BATTLEGROUND in this area. Please tell me what, exactly, is Tatzref guilty of that's a blockable offense? Did he, to the best of your knowledge, out anyone or harass anyone? Yes or no? RS have nothing do with this, Tatzref was not blocked for this, and if there are concerns over his uses of sources, there are other venues to discuss it. But it is worth noting that Icewhiz (and yourself, IIRC) brought evidence against Tatzref to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland, yet ArbCom chose not to act based on this. So in essence, you have issues with his sources, but so far the community has not seen to share them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, we've been at it on at least four TPs now... I get you dislike the piece (and Daniel Blatman's article,[17] and Waitman Wade Beorn's tweets[18]), but I'm not the address. Want to complain about it? Publish your own. AFAIC Tatzref is not WP:here to build an encyclopedia, and shouldn't be allowed around it. François Robere (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Blatman's piece is pretty ok outside blaming Wikipedia (I find it hypocritical for people to blame Wikipedia when they had ample opportunity to edit it themselves, a scholar who feels like complaining about Wikipedia quality in his field of expertise could have had simply edited those articles, but no, he is busy making money/career moves and can't contribute to the public resource...). And I think the other quote we discussed there was taken out of context and simply undue/fringe. But this is not very relevant here. To accuse an editor that one is not here to build an encyclopedia doesn't work. Tatzref did not create any new articles, but he has a number of mainspace edits that go beyond edit warring. Such an accusation might be fair against socks or trolls who limit their edits to talk discussions and edit warring. Anyone who actually tries to add new, referenced content to several articles is here to build an encyclopedia, even if you disagree with their views and interests. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

REPLY

Since François Robere is using my Talk page to continue his attacks against me I believe I have the right to respond. Since joining Wikipedia last year I have been repeatedly accused by Icewhiz and his supporters of all sorts of things, among them misrepresentation/distortion of sources. A careful examination of my edits shows that those charges are unfounded. I have dealt with those charges repeatedly so I will not do so here. Moreover, although they were strenuously argued by François Robere and others in two arbitrations, they were unsuccessful in getting me banned. The charges are now being raised yet again by François Robere, even though they are red herrings that are unrelated to this matter. In my view, repeating them again in this context simply to attack me constitutes harassment.

Icewhiz was blocked indefinitely for off-wiki harassment of multiple editors. This is not a new phenomenon, but appears to be part of an emerging pattern to strike at editors thought to be Polish or pro-Polish. I believe that I have every right to be concerned when François Robere promotes a Haaretz article (about an alleged “widespread Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists” -- his words) that covers up this pattern of harassment. A few days after Icewhiz failed in his arbitration action against me (March 1, 2019), someone posing as Tatzref posted a series of ugly anti-Semitic messages on Stormfront relating to my Wikipedia activity. I will not provide the links, which can be readily found, but here is a sampling of those crude posts:

Tatzref

Forum Member

Join Date: Mar 2019

03-05-2019, 02:59 AM

Our man on Wikipedia

______________________________________

Everybody reads Wikipedia, right? So I wanted to correct the historical record on them JEWS in Poland.

SO - I added stuff about the pimp pogrom - the biggest pogrom in Warsaw history was of criminal JEWS that threw people out of windows and such in a turf war over brothels, messing up large parts of the city […] Naturally, the Wikipedia JEWS went bat****. (Icewhiz) started cutting this out. This guy with Hebrew letters called my well founded addition "antisemitic vandalism". So, I contacted my fellow Volunteer Marek and he got his admin TonyBallioni on it. TonyBallioni has just the right policy - since JEWS use this accusations of "antisemitic" this and that as attacks - anytime a JEW calls anything "antisemitic" - he blocks them. He's completely open about this […] He actually wrote this into policy […] So - if any JEW causes you trouble on Wikipedia, and even suggests that you or whatever you are writing may be "antisemitic" or anything, these are the guys to go to.

03-06-2019, 04:57 AM

Re: Our man on Wikipedia

________________________________________

Jimbo Wales, the founder, is friendly with the JEWS […] I don't think I'll be able to fix the Holocaust article, too many JEWS look over that one but maybe other articles I'll be able to fix.

03-05-2019, 08:47 AM

Re: Jew press admits Andropov was a Jew.

________________________________________

All 'em commies have JEW blood - some of 'em might not know it, but being commie means you've got the JEW in you.

03-05-2019, 08:42 AM

Re: Amazon is Banning WN Books

________________________________________

Amazon? Jewzone. The more they block us, the more our message gets out. […]

It would be difficult to imagine a more egregious and repulsive hatefest. Banning me -- the victim -- in these circumstances would only empower those dark forces. Tatzref (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I want to note that Icewhiz and FR have provided 'evidence' against Tatzref at the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence and suggested findings and remedies such as topic ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. ArbCom chose to ignore this and issued no findings or remedies naming Tazref. Given the further evidence that Tatzref has been subject to off wiki harassment, I concur that to block him is indeed empowering those who engaged in such a harassment, showing that that baiting is a perfectly valid strategy :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Already noted in my comment above. ArbCom's disregard of all evidence that isn't about the parties wasn't a vindication of anyone, but a result of their motivation to keep the scope of the case narrow (see the follow-up discussion on Jimbo's talk).

Harassment of any sort isn't acceptable, but being offended against doesn't mean you can offend others. Two wrongs don't make a right. François Robere (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion of my indefinite block has moved to a page which I’m not allowed to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request_now_at_two+_weeks%2C_editor_apologized%2C_seems_simple_enough%3F

There, on 8 November 2019, Levivich wrote: “Tatzref's unblock request continues the battleground behavior by blaming the editor who was outed, claiming it wasn't outing, saying the policy isn't clear, etc.” The claim that I “outed” Icewhiz is a flagrant misrepresentation. The policy in question WP: OUTING (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information) addresses two specific situations: posting another editor's personal information and attempting to do so. I did neither. Unfortunately, this is typical of the type of misrepresentation I have been subjected to since joining Wikipedia. Will such misrepresentation be allowed to flourish?

Even though I did not post nor did I attempt to post any editor’s personal information, El_C is in favour of their block being continued because, commenting on Benjakob’s Haaretz article that François Robere posted a link to on 3 October, I wrote, “there is a far stronger case for the existence of an Israeli/Jewish POV network than a Polish one". In fact, one of several links I provided in support of my argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_of_Israel) states: “A similar advocacy campaign on Wikipedia was later launched by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America in May 2008; five editors involved in the campaign were sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators, who wrote that Wikipedia's open nature ‘is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing.’” Sounds like a network to me. El_C removed my text and supporting documentation, but apparently has no problem with retaining François Robere’s promotion of an article that alleges “an iceberg of a widespread Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists” (a claim that was never proved), coupled with the bizarre conspiracy theory that “Poles on Wikipedia benefit from an unholy alliance with editors affiliated with the American left.” Given this, the notion that what I wrote is offensive enough to have me blocked indefinitely strikes me as imposing a double standard.Tatzref (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)