![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)
Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023
Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk), Firefly ( Talk), MJL ( Talk), ToBeFree ( Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk), Primefac ( Talk), Wugapodes ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Given that Levivich is mentioned only in connection with Volunteer Marek and VM is mentioned in connection with a lot of issues, I'd urge the committee not to make permanent the two-way iban. I'm not really sure the temporary one was a helpful move at the time, even. I get that these two have a difficult time with each other, but ibans are really hard on editors, and I don't think they should be placed on otherwise useful editors unless really necessary. I don't think this one is. Valereee ( talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Barkeep49 I think you meant to link to this diff [3] in this comment. Volunteer Marek 19:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
It is extremely hard for me to reply to Wugapodes' comment calmly, as in that comment Wugapodes blatantly accuses me of "intellectual dishonesty", something that if it was posted by a non-Arb in any other setting would most likely result in the poster getting sanctioned. But this charge is so serious that I feel I do have to address it. Piece by piece if necessary:
The clearest example of this issue is likely the 2021 dispute at Zygmunt Krasiński. Amidst a content dispute (featuring conduct interesting in its own right) another editor raises concern that VM's edits have "removed all mention of antisemitism". This is verifiably true. I searched the page for the substring "semit" which would match phrases like "antisemitic", "antisemitism", "antisemite", and similar. This substring does not exist on the page after VM's edits. 30 minutes after that comment, VM starts editing again to, among other things, add back in mention of the subject's antisemitic views. This would be fine, of course, we make mistakes and making changes in response to talk page feedback is what we ought to do. After this, VM replies I didn't "remove all mention". It was still there. I re-add an extra sentence just to make you happy. Please stop misrepresenting my edits which blatantly misrepresents the state of the article. Perhaps he was mistaken and thought there were mentions when there weren't?
I didn't "remove all mention". It was still there. I re-added an extra sentence just to make you happy. Please stop misrepresenting my edits.Very literally before your edit it had the phrase and after your edits it didn't and your response doesn't actually tell someone where (in your mind) it was still there. And admitting someone else is right is a great way, in my experience, of helping find consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
His analysis section on the claim went into great detail in order to support his claim that the area has improved, and a hallmark of this argument was that there were exactly zero AE reports [bolding in original] in 2022. So confident was VM in this claim that, when asked for data, he gave us his data for every year except 2022. To be completely above board, I took issue with VM's methodology for how it counted data and the potential to miss things; VM did not take kindly to this, going to other sites to complain about me, but to his credit he did improve his methodology somewhat. I bring this up to juxtapose his reaction to my methodological challenge with the fact that, as we later found out from evidence, there was an AE report in this topic area in 2022 and VM had participated in it. This was, partly, my concern as I pointed out in my comment that Marek did not count an AE report from 2023 in which he had participated. Why would VM not know about this 2022 report? If his methodology was sound, he should have seen it. I can't know what he thought of it because, unlike every other year, he didn't give us his data---strangely, the data he withheld is for the exact year where his claims didn't line up with his data. Given the totality of evidence I have seen during this case, I do not believe this is a coincidence; I believe it is part of a pattern of intellectual dishonesty.
A list of every single AE report in 2022?Yes because that's precisely what you did for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 but now you are incredulous that I wanted you to do what you did for every other year? This goes precisely to the point you're trying to rebut. You act is if I'm being unreasonable for asking you to do what you did for every other year of data because it is wildly suspicious that an academic decided to not report the data he reported for every other year when that data contradicts his claims. — Wug· a·po·des 21:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Do you seriously think I would LIE about ONE vs ZERO AE reportsYes, I was very clear about that point. — Wug· a·po·des 21:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
On the basis of no evidenceI provided multiple paragraphs of evidence. Once again, evidence of my point. — Wug· a·po·des 21:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you did, not "evidence". At best your multiple paragraphs show that [...] I said something that was wrong here or thereSo you mean evidence? — Wug· a·po·des 21:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
but at the very least either VM or a confederate was engaged in logged out sockingAnd now I'm being accused of sock puppetry! I have NEVER sock puppeted. Never ever ever ever. I don't have any "confederates". The person socking in that episode was this account, indef banned for LTA and that was who I was reverting. There was also this IP but for all we know that could've been Icewhiz just stirring things up. In case Wugapodes is confused and believes that simply a Polish IP address indicates that this was me, let CUs assure him that I don't live in Poland. To take someone else's socking and try to blame me for it is... I'm not even going to say it. Volunteer Marek 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
sock, or get a confederate to swoop in and continue the edit war.Another completely unfounded, false, and extreme accusation based on...nothing. Nothing in evidence. Nothing anywhere. Let me repeat: in my 17 years of Wikipedia editing, I have NEVER sock puppeted. Not once. Not twice. Never. I can't believe I am being accused of this and the fact that this accusation is even being made by Wugapodes speaks volumes. Never mind the fact that this is the very dispute where a DIFFERENT user was supporting an actual, real to life, veryobvious,later confirmed, sock puppet of a long-term-abusive editor that I was reverting, and Wugapodes somehow chooses to ignore that part completely. Volunteer Marek 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
In 2010, VM authored the essay Volunteer Marek/Edit warring is good for you. Whether he still subscribes to that belief is, for the moment, immaterial. The reason I lead with this is to point out just how far back this behavior goes.Here is the essay, written over twelve years ago. The very first sentence of the essay is Ok, I don’t mean that literally – I just wanted a heretical headline. The essay is obviously tongue in cheek (though it makes serious points as well). Wugapodes' presentation of it here speaks for itself. Volunteer Marek 21:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
For context, this essay was written less than two months after his topic ban from Eastern European Mailing List was rescinded by this committee. Read that essay with that context in mind. Does it read like an essay from an editor who, fresh off a restriction, has learned to abide by our policies?That it was tongue-in-cheek is not lost on me and precisely why I suggest reading it in the context of you being fresh off a restriction. Of course, this wouldn't let you paint me as unreasonable and selective. — Wug· a·po·des 21:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
pretending the essay says something that it doesn't say [...] based on just the titleand yet I said
Read that essay with that context in mind.I think it's plainly obvious that I was considering more than the title. Once again, my point. — Wug· a·po·des 22:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
What I mean is that some edit warring is good.[...] Some of the best articles on Wikipedia have gone through some serious edit wars. And they are better for it. An edit war – having somebody revert, challenge and fight you every inch, every word of an article – forces you to go to the sources.[...] Content creating editors are supposed to find reliable sources for every single piece of text they write. And edit warring is exactly the competitive process which makes sure that they do that.So these lines, where you say explicitly "what I mean is", are in fact jokes and not what you mean? The portions where you lay out the benefits of edit warring, an argument that follows from that thesis, is a joke? Your conclusion, where you say that edit warring is the process by which one can achieve the benefits you describe in the essay, that's just a joke? The whole things a joke and has no meaning at all? You wrote that whole things because you actually believed edit warring was bad (and then continued to do it for multiple years anyway)? I should, given all of that, conclude that you actually do care about the behavioral policy on edit warring because this essay is just one big joke? — Wug· a·po·des 22:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I do think highly contentious articles which tend to see a lot of edit warring ultimately end up as a result with better sourcing.Is this belief why we have in evidence multiple instances of you edit warring in the years since then? Would that not exemplify my point exactly? — Wug· a·po·des 22:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I also want to note, in general and addressing all arbs and commentators, that by writing that super long massive piece of text - something I’ve *never* seen done in an ArbCase before - in which they accuse me of “intellectual dishonesty” and of sock puppetry (still can’t believe this is actually an accusation!), accusations none of which are or were actually made during either the “Evidence” or “Analysis” phase of the case, Wugapodes put me in an impossible position.
Either I respond to these very extreme accusations in which case it looks like I’m being argumentative, or I leave them alone, giving credence to them by silence. I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
I have never sock puppeted, contrary to Wugapodes evidence free claims, and if I did make errors or said something that wasn’t correct or imprecise, it wasn’t because I was lying. Volunteer Marek 23:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
In interest of full disclosure: I have emailed User:Newyorkbrad because I regard the above accusation to be so extreme, unfair and unfounded. I have asked them to comment here after seeing that they made a placeholder section. Whether they choose to say anything or what they say, is obviously up to them. Reason I asked them in particular is because they already made a placeholder section and because they have been here for a very long time and because they are an editor I have utmost respect for. Volunteer Marek 23:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Arbs - I have no issue with a 1RR restriction or the "consensus required" provision. Volunteer Marek 20:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Izno & User:GeneralNotability re 6.4, just make it “1 comment per talk page per 24 hours” rather than “per level 2”. That will make it simpler to follow and harder to game. And honestly, I can’t think of a situation which would absolutely require more than 1 comment per day. Volunteer Marek 02:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Izno, User:Enterprisey and User:SilkTork – since you folks haven’t voted on the indef proposal. Izno has commented and expressed concern with "multiple partial bans and restrictions" and so I wanted to address these.
Taken together I don’t see these restrictions as being challenging to follow, especially since I plan on very much limiting my Wikipedia activity in the foreseeable future. I believe that their imposition makes an indefinite ban unnecessary and hope you will agree with me in that regard. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 12:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The results are slowly coming in; I suppose I was glad to see Barkeep49 not very determined to ban Marek. I could have participated in this case but have been way too preoccupied at work, though I had a few things to say about an article that also implicated me by partially quoting and misquoting me. At any rate, I urge the arbs not to vote on a project ban for Marek, whom I've known for a while; I blocked him once for refusing to listen, but I also know him as a conscientious editor who takes his academic responsibilities seriously when it comes to sourcing and representing sources. I can feel that this is leaning already toward a topic ban for him, which I think is very strong but perhaps understandable, but I hope that we are not going to reward a banned editor, and another who, IMO, clearly misrepresented what was going in some of the processes in a contentious area. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 20:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Please accept my sincere apologies for commenting during this case. That was my misunderstanding. From the very beginning of the case I was wondering why I was included as a party, given that I do not really edit in this subject area. I thought this is because I knew some other participants of this case for a long time - as contributors on-wiki, not in "real life". Hence, I did honestly express my views and supported them by diffs and references to policies. I realize that arbitrators may disagree with me, but I commented exactly what I think. I also thought that arbitrators are looking for diverse participation, for people who would appear as their "opponents". Please note that I never made any impolite or offensive comments with regard to participants to this case. Now, if my participation was unhelpful (and I am sorry for that!), why no one asked me to stop commenting during the case? I would stop immediately. I did not have a slightest idea that my comments were viewed in such way. To the contrary, I sincerely thought that arbitrators requested my comments by including me as a party to the case, and I always respect such requests. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Now, if my participation was unhelpful (and I am sorry for that!), why no one asked me to stop commenting during the case?is a fair question and deserves a response. For me, it wasn't an individual comment that was the problem. It was all of the participation put together; this is why the diffs in your section are listed as e.g. or examples given because they don't represent diffs showing all the issues. So there wasn't some behavior to tell you to knock off. If someone crosses a line with a comment I will say something. Otherwise I believe parties get a fair amount of leeway to conduct themselves as they want. So in thinking about this conduct, my concern is that at ArbCom we could see evidence of this behavior thanks to the close examination of conduct at the case (and in discussions) over time and in a deliberate manner. But that's not possible in other contexts, so I'm left considering options about how to ensure that doesn't happen. And I see that my thinking and concern is shared by other arbs. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
About the first Proposed Remedy, the request for a WMF white paper, ArbCom might want to consider using language that refers more specifically to the issue of writing about the personal information of Wikipedians, rather than the more general "writing about Wikipedians". At least, I assume that this is the intention of the proposed remedy. I don't mean to imply that the white paper should be narrow-focused on that, but rather, that it should be made clear that this is something that needs to be addressed within the white paper. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm following the discussion between VM and Wugapodes, and particularly the part about VM (or a confederate) having allegedly socked by editing while logged out. I've looked at the evidence summary, and the IPs geolocate to Poland. I recognize that the checkuser policy tends not to support public comments on IPs in relation to named accounts, but I think it might be possible to give a yes/no answer to how likely or unlikely it is that there was close geolocation between VM and the alleged confederate. If, as I think may be possible, VM was not anywhere near Poland at the time of those edits, then it would have had to have been VM in one part of the world, and the alleged confederate in Poland. Given the entire subject matter of the case, it seems a lot simpler to me that there could have been people in Poland who made those IP edits, but who did so without any communication or coordination with VM. In multiple other parts of the case, Arbs are correctly taking the approach that people agreeing about content is not, by itself, evidence of sockpuppetry. It would be a good idea to apply the same reasoning here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Because they are Principles, they don't attract as much comment, but I want to say that I like Principles 2 (Role of Committee) and 3 (Limitations), as well as 9 (Source manipulation), the way that they are written. As CaptainEek correctly points out, they are important in explaining the case to the general public.
I want, however, to point something out about Principle 11 (On and off-wiki behavior). Although it's true, as written, it seems to me to get things backwards, in a way that has been bothering me throughout the case. As I read the dispute, the problem isn't that acceptable on-wiki behavior became a problem off-site, unless one is talking about canvassing, which I'm guessing is not what this is about. Instead, I think that ArbCom is trying to set up the idea giving rise to FoF 9, about it not being outing if it's part of an academic journal article. Given that you want to argue that, you should be precise in your use of language. Thus, this is about material that should not be posted on-wiki, being nonetheless OK if it's posted in an academic paper.
I'm glad that you found my suggested wording for Remedy 1 helpful.
Having suggested 1RR, I want to note that I find reasonable the counter-arguments that multiple specific restrictions begin to look more like the need for a site-ban. That's a point well-taken. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time reconciling Barkeep49's very reasonable comment under the Motion to Close, with the accusation of VM and the IP being socks. It should be obvious that Arbs should model the good conduct they expect of the community. In weighing a site-ban for VM, I urge the Arbs to consider recent conduct, more so than everything over time, and to put in context how an editor reacts when feeling attacked. Honestly, I think my gut feelings may very well be wrong, but my gut feelings are very similar to those of Newyorkbrad. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I want to add that I think that Ealdgyth's comments below hit the nail on the head, as to why it is inaccurate to call VM dishonest. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I want to thank Enterprisey for his abstain comment in FoF 9, which is an astute way of explaining the concerns that some of us have had. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Seeing various other comments about whether the VM-Levivich IBAN should be made one-way, I'd like the Arbs to carefully consider something first. VM has consistently accepted that an IBAN is appropriate, which indicates some significant self-awareness. Levivich has consistently taken the position that he is not at fault. It's for the Arbs to determine whether that's because Levivich is, in fact, faultless. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the Arbs already know about this, but I think this is interesting as information (no, I am not asking for action on it):
[10]. No need for other editors to discuss it here, just information about views of the PD that are useful to be aware of. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
16:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The unabridged
WP:OWH wording is Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of hounding, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy.
Couldn't posting a person's name and place of employment in an academic paper – while accusing them of spreading antisemitic canards – be viewed as "Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following", or a "form of hounding"? Who would want this? And what purpose does the mention of a Wikipedian's personal details in an academic paper serve, if it is not intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset
that Wikipedian? As I mentioned before, this would be very different if the editor(s) concerned were Grabowski's and Klein's peers – Holocaust scholars also publishing academically in this topic area, guaranteed a right to reply in the same venue. But they are not. The outed editors are, as far as this topic area is concerned, laypeople, like the rest of us. And that means that this is not a fair fight between academic peers.
Also kindly note that the relevant passages in the Universal Code of Conduct's "Unacceptable behaviour" and "Harassment" preambles and the sentence preceding the bullet points all expressly state that unacceptable behaviour and harassment includes everything that follows:
The following behaviours are considered unacceptable within the Wikimedia movement ...
Harassment: This includes any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome ...
Harassment includes but is not limited to: Insults [...] Sexual harassment [...] Threats [...] Encouraging harm to others [...] Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
I'm all in favour of asking the Board to revise the document or provide a clarification. But guessing what the document maybe "ought" to have said doesn't strike me as a very good idea. At worst, doing so is indistinguishable from ignoring what the document actually does say.
This said, I am glad to see the Committee addressing this issue in the Proposed decision, and I applaud the request for a white paper. -- Andreas JN 466 22:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Principle 11 reads 11) Behaviour of editors on-wiki and off-wiki are not subject to the same standards. Conduct which may be considered acceptable in the open and transparent atmosphere of Wikipedia (i.e., on-wiki) may be controversial and even unacceptable if made off wiki, due to the lack of transparency. In a similar vein, off-wiki disclosure of personal information does not allow, or excuse, a third party to post it on-wiki.
This seems like an explicit – and unanimous – rejection by the Committee of the UCoC "Doxing" paragraph, which makes no distinction between on-wiki and off-wiki disclosure of personal information and considers both equally unacceptable: Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects
.
@ Mike Peel: I trust the board will in due course take the appropriate action – either to overrule ArbCom and enforce the UCoC as written, or, accepting that the quoted passage is unenforceable, to revise it at its earliest opportunity. -- Andreas JN 466 23:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@ BilledMammal and Guerillero: I assume the Foundation would consider the recent community endorsement of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines (see Signpost coverage) a sufficient "Enabling Act". The community actually voted twice to endorse the Enforcement Guidelines. The most recent poll resulted in a 76% "Yes" vote ( 2,290 Yes, 722 No). Even if you allow for the fact that this was a Wikimedia-wide poll rather than an English Wikipedia poll, I dare say that it's almost a mathematical impossibility that the English Wikipedia vote, taken by itself, would result in a different outcome. Moreover, the Universal Code of Conduct will shortly be explicitly enshrined in the Terms of Use as well (the revised ToU will contain three explicit mentions of the UCoC) – and you know that we agree to be bound by the ToU with every edit we make here. Arguably of course this makes resolving any discrepancies between the UCoC and English Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines an even more urgent matter. But I am not sure whether an RfC on ArbCom Enforcement in English Wikipedia now can still deliver a meaningful result, given that the previous community-wide vote had a level of participation (3,000+ users) at least an order of magnitude greater than any on-wiki RfC on this question is likely to achieve. -- Andreas JN 466 15:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Dear Arbitrators: If I look at the Findings of Fact related to François Robere and Volunteer Marek, all I see is a list of things they have done wrong. Now I know it's your job to "find fault", but you managed to say something nice about Piotrus' editing. Couldn't you perhaps find a few kind words to say about these editors' contributions to the topic area as well? Unless you really think that they did not contribute in good faith, and never wrote anything of value, it doesn't seem quite right to summarise a volunteers' efforts, which included significant investments in time, even money (for book purchases etc.), simply by listing that over the course of more than a decade they edit-warred at some point, or wrote something that qualified as a "personal attack" or "hounding" according to Wikipedia's rules, or used "unhelpful edit summaries".
I think this is particularly important in this case, given the way it came about, the public accusations made in the essay (which you are at least partly disagreeing with), and the resulting public and scholarly attention the final decision might conceivably attract, but it's something that would be generally nice to see and might help to alleviate the somewhat torturous and inhumane nature ArbCom proceedings frequently assume for parties to a case. -- Andreas JN 466 12:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Scholars from both sides of the scholarly debate are unhappy with Wikipedia this week:
-- Andreas JN 466 18:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
A minor copyediting comment regarding proposed remedy 8: I suggest revising the wording to The Arbitration Committee assumes responsibility for the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek, and makes it an indefinite ban.
isaacl (
talk)
22:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Regarding proposed remedy 1: I agree with copyediting changes being done with minimal fuss. In my view, the remedy does not have to contain an exhaustive list of the details to be discussed with the WMF regarding the proposal, and the two sides can talk to each other for clarification, so precise wordsmithing is not needed at this time as long as the general scope is understood. isaacl ( talk) 23:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the proposed source language restriction remedy: I fear the takeaway will be the portion of CaptainEek's rationale stating that non-English sources are too easily manipulated. I think this is overly reductionist as quality of scholarship issues can arise in English-language sources as well. I appreciate the difficulties in verifying hard-to-obtain sources, and the risks of relying on sources that contradict generally accepted academic consensus views. I think it would be better to address this in a language-independent manner, though. isaacl ( talk) 20:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
VM has been the source of significant disruption, both recently and further back. I would encourage @ Guerillero: to create an EE TBAN as a separate remedy proposal, as I concur with their thinking that the narrower TBAN would be insufficient. However, I think that the indications of a viable behaviour set go along with their known competences, to advise against a full ban.
On the topic of principle 16, that of the UCOC, it probably is wise for ARBCOM to create a principle on the matter. The first sentence is accurate, even if I dispute its mandate to do so, given not merely the lack of a community vote but a set of flaws in the phase 1 proceedings entirely. Sentence 2 The English Wikipedia has developed policies and guidelines (PAG) that add to this minimum that take account of local and cultural context, maintaining the UCoC criteria as a minimum standard and, in many PAGs, going beyond those minimums.
I would say don't align with the actual historical truth. We didn't get the UCOC and then create some PAGs - our conduct PAGs haven't changed significantly since the UCOC was created. Instead something more like "The English Wikipedia has developed, prior to the UCOC, policies and guidelines (PAGs) that meet all minimum requirements of the UCOC and, in many PAGs, significantly exceed those minimums. By following and enforcing our conduct PAGs, we will inherently ensure that the UCOC is also complied with. Therefore, the Arbitration Committee, as an identified high-level decision making body under the UCoC enforcement guidelines, may choose to evaluate compliance with English Wikipedia PAGs"
I get Barkeep49's concerns on this matter, so a principle that lays out the reasoning that "complying with our own rules is sufficient because doing so means we have met the UCOC" while avoiding giving the UCOC a nature that it doesn't possess feels like a possible way through. Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia has developed [...] policies and guidelines (PAGs) that meet all minimum requirements of the UCOCis actual fact. Has anyone reviewed the documents of interest to ensure that is so? I think there has been a reasonable point that the UCOC's "thou shalt not dox" is not enshrined anywhere in Wikipedia policy, even if WP:HARASS and the line of interest are very near in sense to each other.
Curiously, I find the majority votes table, the voting results table, and the closing-the-case voting section missing up to date. George Ho ( talk) 00:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
As we all know, the Committee opened this case on its own initiative to examine the claims in an academic publication, which asserted that our articles in an important and sensitive topic-area were being intentionally distorted and manipulated by a group of nationalist editors. I understand why the arbitrators may have felt compelled to weigh in, and I do not criticize their decision to open the case. However, it is far from obvious that an ArbCom case was the best way to address the issue.
A takeaway: Wikipedia probably needs a procedure for evaluating allegations that sensitive and important articles are pervasively untrustworthy. I am not sure what that procedure should be, but I am confident that an arbitration case is not it. Brainstorming about how this type of situation should be handled in the future could be at least as important as the "white paper" the Committee proposes to solicit in remedy 1.
I'm not going to comment on everything, or even many things, in the proposed decision. The arbitrators, particularly the drafters, have obviously put massive time and effort into it, and I commend them for that. I certainly haven't read all the evidence, or the diffs cited in the decision, and it would ill-behoove me to second-guess those who have without retracing their steps, which I have no intention of doing.
My attention is caught, though, by the ban proposals against Volunteer Marek ("VM"). I'm not going to opine on what sanction, if any, is warranted against him, though I will say I was surprised to see a site-ban proposed. I suspect others will have been surprised as well, and that arbitrator Wugapodes has presented his unusually lengthy and emphatic justification for a siteban against VM at least partly in anticipation of that reaction.
As I said, I haven't read all the diffs, but at least two of Wugapodes' specifications against VM give me pause on their face. The first is his reliance on this essay as evidence that VM is contemptuous of policy and that his approach is incompatible with proper editing. This decade-old essay is an interesting piece of wiki-philosophy, which people might take or leave. Reading it with more attention to detail than it might deserve, I don't believe that WM was defending "edit-warring" in its most problematic "revert back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth" form. He was saying that controversial articles may benefit from having multiple contributors with different views, even if the cost of that is some short-term back-and-forth and contentiousness and even reverting as the editors work toward a version of the article that they can all accept. And I understand at least the gist of where VM's essay is coming from; "horrors! reverts! must block!" can be a very superficial way of looking at a content dispute between serious editors who are want to leave a well-written, accurate article behind them when the process is over. One can walk away from VM's essay thinking it underrates the need to avoid edit-warring (however exactly that is defined); but one can also read it as stressing the value of careful research and meticulous sourcing, especially when it comes to challenged claims. I wouldn't sign my name to this essay, but it is not so far beyond the pale as to be useful evidence in an arbitration case.
My other concern relates to Wugapodes' conclusion that VM was dishonest when he wrote, as background information about the state of the topic-area, that there were no AE reports in the topic-area in 2022, where it turns out that apparently there was one such report. Above, Wugapodes categorically rejects VM's claim that this was an understandable, or at least an unintentional, mistake, and tells VM "to his (wiki-)face" that he is certain VM was deliberately lying, about a patently minor and peripheral issue. Here I think Wugapdes may have become so disposed to disbelieve everything VM says—whether justifiably or otherwise others will judge—that he has become more jaded than is desirable. In this instance at least, VM's rejoinder above is a sensible one, and a minor and inadvertent mistake is indeed by far the most likely explanation.
These two points don't mean that there necessarily isn't merit to Wugapodes' myriad other allegations against Volunteer Marek, but for myself, each of them is akin to a proverbial thirteenth chime of the clock: it not only adds no useful information in itself, but it demands a reevaluation of all that has come before. I respect the strength of Wugapodes' feeling that he must make one of the most difficult decisions an arbitrator can make, which is that it is necessary to separate a long-time, hard-working, dedicated editor from our project. Suffice it to say that the it might be best for him to step aside from the dialog at this point and allow the other arbitrators to take the question forward from here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
(Note: Before hitting "publish" I scrolled up the page to see whether anything relevant had happened since I started typing, and I see VM's note that he has e-mailed me. Having written the above, I am deliberately posting it before reading the e-mail. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC))
(Added Friday morning) I just took another look at the proposed decision page and this talkpage. I'm pressed for time today, and will simply repeat that I hope the arbitrators will give careful scrutiny to the proposed findings and remedies against Volunteer Marek. At least some of the allegations and diffs still strike me as thin or explainable, and indeed some of them he has explained above, although it appears he has stopped explaining after being told that arguing with an arbitrator was not helping him. He has been an imperfect editor to be sure, but I have never found him to be "dishonest" as he is being accused of, and I've found him attentive to facts and detail, including in contentious areas. I may (or may not) comment on some other aspects of the PD later when I have more time later in the day. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 12:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
(update Sunday evening) I've spent a little more time reviewing the proposals about Volunteer Marek. There are four findings against him. The first details the record of prior sanctions against VM, and it's not a trivial list, but it bears noting how many of the prior blocks or other sanctions were overturned on review, sometimes by the admin who imposed them and sometimes on a noticeboard. The second finding relating to edit summaries is the subject of VM's first paragraph above on this talkpage, where he provides explanations that I think draw much of the force from the finding. The third and fourth findings cite more evidence than the first two; they reflect a more confrontational editing style than might be desirable, albeit sometimes under provocation, but the substantive points VM is making in these discussions usually have at least some justification.
I think any analysis of VM's editing in this topic-area ought to consider the point he made in his evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence#Ealdgyth's 2022 attempt to improve Holocaust in Poland article, which is mentioned in the summary Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area. To me that is strong evidence of good faith. Good faith, even on Wikipedia, is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; but neither is it irrelevant, especially given the nature of the allegations that caused the case to be opened.
For anyone to ask for a second look at the topic-ban that is passing unanimously would be tilting at windmills, but I'm surprised by the support so far for banning VM from Wikipedia entirely, which I would consider an overbroad and overharsh sanction.
Concerning a possibly less weighty matter, the one-way interaction ban between My Very Best Wishes and Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (remedy 5.2) might be limited, without impairing its value, to interactions either in the context of this topic-area or in dispute-resolution processes. I do not see why MVBW should be prevented from, for example, collaborating with Piotrus or VM on an article in an unrelated topic-area. And on a typographical note, in FOF #1, the title of the earlier case that was resolved by motion was "Warsaw Concentration Camp" (singular; the issue, at least when that case was first proposed, related to one specific place).
As always, I hope this helps. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I should only be grateful for having been spared by ArbCom (if that's what happened) and be quiet, but I feel the need to comment on the proposed site-ban for VM.
Honestly, I think it would be too harsh and not necessary. Please note, I've suffered a lot in the recent past because of VM's approach to editing, which is very harmful and toxic, and I do understand Wugapodes when they explain why VM is "a net negative to the project": he's undoubtedly a burden. However, he's also a resource for the encyclopaedia – because he's experienced, he's passionate about the project, very dedicated to it, has a good eye for sources and other stuff editors need to know, etc. So it's a question of weighing costs and benefits: is the net result positive or negative?
Based on my experience in the RU area and the little I know about the HiP area, I would answer in no uncertain terms that it is negative, and by a lot. However, I have often thought (and sometimes said) that 50% of the blame for this lies with VM and 50% with the admins, who for some reason seem to be almost afraid of him and fail to sanction blatant misconduct. It's as if around VM there was a kind of awe and respect to the point of pusillanimity, and I've always wondered why. Why don't you stop him? Not by blocking him indefinitely, for goodness sake, but by applying increasingly longer blocks and other appropriate sanctions (0RR or 1RR) to de-escalate or prevent conflicts, establish boundaries, mitigate and educate. I'm almost a newcomer to this community and I must be missing something very basic, but common sense suggests to me that VM doesn't need to be indeff'ed: he needs to be bullied (so to speak) by admins, i.e., to be contained and repeatedly sanctioned, until he understands that mistreating people just because they are behind the screen is unacceptable, that deceiving and escalating conflicts to push a POV is not okay, and that POV-pushing, if inevitable, is only acceptable if done with a very light touch, abiding by policies and seeking consensus.
So instead of the site-ban I would urge Arbs to consider other sanctions that are more targeted, equally effective and less harsh, sanctions that IMHO need to be applicable not only to the HiP topic area, but to all VM's contributions. In fact, for the reasons I explained here (final paragraph), I believe that the other proposed sanction, "Volunteer Marek topic banned", would be not only ineffective, but actually harmful. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 00:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The VM "lol" edit summary obviously had room for improvement. But the revert itself was a positive contribution to the project, and a lot of such reverting was needed on that type of article during that time, for obvious reasons. Furthermore, if one were to look at edit summaries by User:Adoring nanny, one could surely find fault there as well. Adoring nanny ( talk) 01:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The proposed 1RR for VM does not specify one revert per what unit of time. Adoring nanny ( talk) 12:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Izno: I would like to +1 to BilledMammal's concern. While yes, this is the current wording, there are still way many arguments at RSN about this and if it is in the realm of possibility I'd prefer a wording that made it clearer that there is nothing wrong with foreign-language text per se. It is often the case, for example, that all of the references in a translated article are initially in the original language.
I pointed out in the process of Evidence presentations that VM's analysis of AE cases was not so clear...Wugapodes summarized and expounded upon that distinction very well. Thank you. Given that he clearly omitted data in such a serious proceeding, I think "intentionally misleading" is an appropriate summary
However, by the exact same token, more examples of misleading edit summaries should be included if he's going to be cited for that under a FoF. At least two certainly are. Could they have been errors? Though it seems unlikely, it is possible. Therefore, I concur that three examples is too few to support the conclusion. Such examples should just be incorporated into a FoF regarding battleground behavior.
I also find it weak that VM says he isn't supporting edit warring with his essay. To paraphrase: "We should edit war. j/k I just wrote that to get attention; don't do that. But here are some reasons edit warring is good..." No. Just No. We should be able to have a collegial discussion about any contentious points, not an edit war. "Some articles are better because of edit wars" I suppose that's possible, but even if the articles themselves are better, the cost of such "battles" are too high in terms of human capital. They clearly drive away editors. WP:IDONTGETIT applies in spades here. Buffs ( talk) 04:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
"doubled down on it" sounds like he stuck to "no cases in 2022" even after being informed that there was a case. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.I concurred with Wugapodes's assessment and pointed out the flaw in his logic. He stuck by his comments and never altered them/responded with a correction (unlike others...listen, we all make mistakes. I've stuck comments and everyone should be given some grace when they make mistakes and admit it). Buffs ( talk) 16:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
VM has consistently accepted that an IBAN is appropriate, which indicates some significant self-awareness. Levivich has consistently taken the position that he is not at fault. It's for the Arbs to determine whether that's because Levivich is, in fact, faultless.I would argue that VM has merely accepted it as inevitable. The fact that so many people are being considered from banned contact with VM shows just how abrasive he can be. Levivich has not stated he is "faultless". If you'd care to link to a statement otherwise, I'll be happy to strike. But more to the point that many of us are making is that it's highly disproportionate to the alleged offense (TBH, I'm not seeing the alleged long string of inappropriate behavior that is being claimed here; it's not in the evidence that was presented unless I'm missing it). If anything the existing IBAN seems to have done its job. VM has been given chance after chance after chance for almost a decade and proven himself to be an irritant....about half of the Arbs seem to agree that it's worth removing him from WP. No one is alleging anything close to that with Levivich. Yet they are both facing the same punishment for the same infraction. I think IBAN with "time served" is sufficient. Buffs ( talk) 22:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
There clearly seems to be support for a VM TBan but many Arbs have voiced support for "more than just this". However support for an indefinite ban, but no less than a year seems split. While it may pass or may not (that's really up to ArbCom), might I suggest a 1-3 month block/"enforced wikibreak" rather than the infamous banhammer as a reasonable compromise that could be offered as an alternative? Buffs ( talk) 21:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
The Committee was right to establish this case, and several of the arbitrators have been tireless in their responses to participants and efforts to tease out the issues. Thank you to all of you for that. But (and there's always a but in PD-talk): if Committee members believe Volunteer Marek is sockpuppeting they should propose this as a FoF, act on it privately as a Committee, or open an SPI. It would be pretty rough if this allegation was first raised in a PD comment without being discussed in evidence or (apparently) being raised with the editor concerned. Doubly so as the PD recommends a site ban against that editor with sock- or meatpuppetry being presented as partial justification.
Please note this is not meant as a personal criticism: just a personal view that allegations on PD pages should be formally made, or not made at all.-- Euryalus ( talk) 04:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Proposed decision#Verifiability of foreign language texts. While the underlying principle of using an English source over a non-English source makes sense we should base the article, particularly when it comes to determining WP:DUEWEIGHT, on all reliable sources.
Not doing this is already an issue and a cause of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS, and I worry that the text of this principle will exacerbate this. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.
However, UCoC is just as much part of policy as if it was passed as an enwiki policy.My reading of WP:CONEXCEPT suggests that while the Foundation has the power to themselves enforce the UCoC, through office actions and similar, they don't have the authority to grant local admins the power to enforce it or otherwise require it be treated as policy on enwiki. Thus, if ARBCOM wishes to rely on it in their cases, or if they believe admins should rely on it generally, I strongly encourage them to open an RfC as an enabling act for it. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
A pedant writes:
Narky Blert ( talk) 08:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I do not like the currently mooted proposals for Volunteer Marek. First, we should not make excessively complicated sanctions regimes that burden other editors and administrators with constant enforcement nitpicking. If an editor cannot be trusted to edit properly after multiple warnings and sanctions spanning decades, why should we think that more of the same would have effect? Second, we should be especially considerate of long term contributors and give them a face saving way to get out of trouble. I think a nice wikibreak might do Volunteer Marek a world of good. Volunteer Marek has had the opportunity to propose a constructive path forward. Instead, they have posted extensive denials on this page. Regretfully, a wikibreak may need to be organized by ArbCom if Volunteer Marek does not recognize the problems they have caused and explain how they will do better. Jehochman Talk 12:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
You've voted for 4 distinct sanctions on Volunteer Marek, who has a long list of prior sanctions. This is unwise.
Just ban him for a moderate length of time, until he agrees to change his style. In this case, one side is more wrong than the other. If you ban VM, you don't need to sanction FR and Levivich. Those guys didn't behaved perfectly, but you should excuse them for getting upset about nationalistic distortion of Holocaust history. In general, you should bend over backwards for people who were trying to protect the encyclopedia content from a disinformation attack.
I know you don't like to change your minds under pressure because it invites more pressure, often improper. Yes, I get that. But this error is worth correcting. Jehochman Talk 12:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Nishidani, I understand that the Poles involvement in the Holocaust was complex. We need a scholarly and careful approach to the topic. Jehochman Talk 15:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Trying to express concerns tentatively as probably even Solomon wouldn't be able to rule to the satisfaction of all in a case like this. Mostly looks a sensible PD. Yet while accepting the need for a decisive resolution, some of the findings & remedies relating to Levivich, MvBW & VM seem a little heavy. Esp. for VM re 16.2 & the suggestion he 'behaves dishonestly'. It's not humanly possible to make > 90,000 non minor edits without a few honest mistakes. I hope Wugs considers removing that part of his rationale. It only seems to detract from his otherwise strong justification for a site ban. And it seems a gross injustice towards VM, who whatever his possible faults, appears to be a man of honour & exceptional integrity.
As Barkeep has just expressed a strong desire to see an end to folk insinuating new editors might be IceWhiz socks, it might be helpful to mention some recent developments in the broader picture, as this may allay concerns. Back in late 2017, Icewhiz was first drawn into the TA due to concern about the Polish government. Specifically with the then forthcoming 2018 Polish legislation. In the G&K paper , it states said legislation "instilled an atmosphere of fear" among scholars & educators working in the TA. The paper also quotes the Polish PM's adviser who suggested Wikipedia entries could be corrected if they were "super discreet" and able to allocate a "larger budget". But G&K's very act of publishing their paper may have changed those allocation priorities. It may have caused the Polish Foreign Office to see they might be a little out of their depth trying to square up against someone like Ice in this particular digital theatre. Every time it had looked like Ice had been beaten, he proved he was able to escalate things to a whole new level. Hence perhaps the Polish Government wanting to ensure they are less reliant on allies, & so less exposed to bad publicity. It's a bigger concern to Poland to be portrayed as anti-semitic than it would be for some other nations, due to their unique history & security situation. But there's more than one way to feel secure. Poland begun increasing defence spending immediately after Russia invaded, but it was only after the G&K paper that they seem to have gone into overdrive. Here's a FT article published a few weeks back expressing concern that Poland is now spending so much they risk severe economic issues. They're aiming to raise an army of 300,000 men. Their spending about $30 billion to support said troops with the best possible heavy hardware, like Patriots, Abrahams & Apache attack helicopters. They're wanting such quantities even US may not come through on the whole list. But that's not going to stop Andrzejczak gaining one of the world's most powerful land armies - Poland's home building all sorts of kit, spending billions with South Korea, more from sources not yet public domain, and here's a £2 Billion deal announced with UK on the same day the analyses phase closed. Someone with Ice's contacts can't be unaware of all of this, nor of the desperate fear that is driving such defence spending. AFAIK Ice never bore any malice towards Poland, he just sought to counter goverment actions he saw as worsening anti-semiticism. Given his knowledge of external events as well the remedies here, it seems likely Ice will be magnanimous in victory, similar to Gitz with his impressive plea for leniency. Obviously any absurd mentions of Jewish collaboration with the Nazis can now be removed from our articles (if any still remain, couldn't find any myself, though I didnt check the whole TA). But it seems unlikely Ice would want to exploit the opportunity the PD presents to portray Poles in an excessively -ve light. He probably wouldnt even want such a crushing defeat of Team Poland as would be the case if the honourable VM was unfairly branded as dishonest. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC) |
Perhaps I've missed it, but what is the number of votes needed for passage on this case? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
My participation in this case has been minimal as a non-party, but I've been following it as an observer. Overall, I think the proposed remedies are reasonable. Some might be more appropriate than others, but there are none that I strongly object to. I especially like the white paper of remedy one. Offsite participants in Wikipedia disputes have the potential to create significant disruption and even real life harm, whether intentionally or not, and any measure that gets ahead of that is a positive. I agree that its relation to personal information should be made explicit, but it should also provide some form of guidance on how to avoid unduly influencing Wikipedia's processes if possible. I'm hoping that the community will be able to provide input on its content, either on enwiki or meta-wiki. We should do everything in our power as a community to prevent anything that constitutes—or could be reasonably construed as—harassment, intimidation, canvassing, or otherwise targeting specific editors or discussions with the effect of changing on-wiki behavior. At the very least, we can ask that external parties make a good faith effort to avoid these things.
For the same reason, I regret to see FOF 9 being considered. Regardless of whether the paper meets the technical definition of off-wiki harassment, there is no denying that real editors were identified by name (both username and real life name) for their actions on Wikipedia, and the authors directly caused a change in on-wiki activity. Even if Grabowski and Klein are not specifically censured for the paper (as I initially supported), I would at least hope that Arbcom's findings acknowledge that, regardless of this paper, off-site content can be written in a way that changes behavior on-wiki or targets a specific editor, no matter where it's published or by whom. This won't be the last time that Wikipedia editors and disputes are identified offsite, and it's too important not to address directly. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Remedy 5.2 currently includes the phrase My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions
. This appears to extend far beyond the topic area in this case, and I really don't see a good reason why why MBVW should be banned from editing the sorts of AMPOL articles that Marek also edits. If the issue is, as described, their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek
, it would be better to make this ban apply in conduct discussions and formal content discussions (such as RfCs), rather than extending to a great series of articles where no problem presently exists (and where MBVW and Marek do not always see eye-to-eye). —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
02:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
plus ones to each other when looking broadly outside of this topic area. For some examples of this sort of interactions, see Talk:Stara Krasnianka care house attack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interaction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi monuments in Canada. A broad, one-way interaction ban does not feel like the most narrowly tailored solution here. A more narrowly tailored solution with respect to Piotrus (for example, a restriction in participating in conduct discussions pertaining to Piotrus) seems much more narrowly tailored to the existing FoF. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49 Are there any problems with the interactions between me and MVBW [11] outside of their comments about me, unbidden, in this very case? Those interactions I think are quite rare anyway as frankly, we "drifted apart" in our interests and I kind of forgot he exists until this case reminded me of that fact :> In the past I occasionally did ask MVBW, and resumed doing so recently, for comments on Russian-language topics; most recently I asked him for input regarding a saying attributed to some Russian figures, and he was kind enough to comment and provide a translation fix ( Talk:Give me the man and I will give you the case against him, [12]). I also asked him for input regarding another topic recently in the context of Russia, and found his reply interesting ( [13]). He has also, unasked, made a comment at Talk:Puppet_state#Is_Transnistria's_status_really_disputed? that was helpful, as my question there waited for a week before someone noticed it (someone, in this case, being MVBW).
For the record, we don't always agree (for example,
random AfD I noticed we both voted differently in,
another one,
one more,
and one more for good measure... and yes, there are some times we agree with, of course, as well.).
Would it be possible to craft a remedy that addresses the arbitrator concerns while not preventing such interactions as listed above?
User:Red-tailed hawk's suggsetion to make this ban apply in conduct discussions
might be worth considering. Bottom line, I do not understand why the project needs to prevent me from asking MVBW about a Russian-related topic (or prevent him from replying to me, since the proposed i-ban is one-sided?).
For additional context, please see this diff, which is what motivated me to make this very comment here.
PS. I also noticed that the Committee is considering a topic ban for MVBW. What is the relation between him excessively commenting here about editors (me and VM I gather) and MVBW's ability to edit articles related to this topic area? Which, I think, he edits very, very rarely - but a broad interpreation of this ban would make him, for example, unable to reply to my question about underground education (since that particular article covers, among other topics, Poland's WWII period). Were there any concerns raised about MVBW's edits to article namespace, or participation in any talk page discussions (outside this case, which is what FoF cover)? The summary of evidence related to MVBW does not suggest this is the case? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Few comments about other stuff:
As somebody who has long edited in one of Wikipedia's other "contentious topics", and been sanctioned for that editing, it has always surprised me how behavioral issues escalate in some of the other topic areas. ARBPIA still, obviously, has its issues, but edit-warring is a rare one. But in topics like EE/HIP and AMPOL, it remains the norm. In ARBPIA editors were hit with bans until they learned to edit appropriately, or when they proved they could not they were finally shown the door way before any ArbCom case was needed. And because the editors in these other topics get wrist slapped or outright ignored when reported, people stop reporting them, and eventually you end up with a case where editors who, by nearly all accounts, are productive and care about the project and its goals, end up being considered for site bans. VM, and a bunch of others, need to internalize that hitting undo repeatedly is edit-warring, and it does not matter how many times or over how long you do it, if you revert the same thing 4 times in a month or in a day without affirmative consensus for your edit you are edit-warring. And if he had been sanctioned sufficiently for that I highly doubt it would have continued. The easy thing for somebody in your position to do is say enough is enough, site ban. The smarter thing for you to do is to work through what would it take to retain VM's constructive and productive contributions while stripping away the problematic issues, those being edit-warring and civility. nableezy - 17:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I've been mulling over a response to the proposed decision since I saw it Thursday afternoon. All in all, I think it's ... mostly good.
Ealdgyth ( talk) 18:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
as it leaves me a bit in the dark about who this refers to and what to do if past editors return to their behavior - I won't have a clue about whether this non-remedy refers to their past behavior and what/where to go to see if I can "invoke" this non-remedy.And since others have discussed this one, such an FOF (or three) was discussed in drafting the PD. I think I would like to introduce one since I also think it would help the parties both in this area and in the wider EE area know who is on notice, but I'd like to get the ear (potentially in private) of the drafters on who they think primarily fits in the relevant buckets of "basically innocent", "evidence too old to consider (spending lots of time on)", and "evidence new enough but not sufficiently bad to get Named in their own FOFs for misbehavior".
On source restrictions. In response to @ Izno: In my opinion, the proposed restriction may fail what I call a "Glaukopis test". The problem is that many sources that caused so many problems fit "peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book etc" criteria. Indeed, many local authors writing on the Holocaust are considered as reputable scholars in their own countries, and the local journals that publish their works are formally peer-reviewed (and Glaukopsis is a typical example). It took a tremendous amount of time and efforts to come to a conclusion that Glaukopsis doesn't fit our criteria . In my opinion, the only criterion that makes it possible to screen out poor quality publications that meet all formal criteria outlined in the "Sourcing restriction" rules is as follows: the authors must be reasonably well cited by peers (outside of their country) and/or the article/book has a reasonable number of citations, and these citations contain little criticism. At least, this is a rule that I myself use for source selection, and it does not prevent me from editing Wikipedia.
On the "Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed" It seems to me that this formula needs to be specified. It is necessary to specify that it covers the whole pre-WWII Poland, which included a significant part of modern Ukraine, as well as a part of Lithuania (including its modern capital). That is important, because a significant part of the Holocaust events occurred in this territories, so the same disputes and the same conflicts (maybe, even more severe conflicts) are starting over the role of local nationalists in the Holocaust. And, similar to Poland, many local sources describe the events at a totally different angle. Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Sort of weird to see a proposal to ban an editor from a specific topic area, while no FoF indicates their misbehavior there or anywhere else in article space, and their actual problem was unproductive behavior at arbcom proceedings they were party at.-- Staberinde ( talk) 21:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
During March and April, as this case was being conducted in virtual space, in "real life" I had to deal with an agglomeration of events that left me little time to dwell on these relatively trivial Wikipedian affairs. I had not time to go over all of the "evidence", nor time to reply to most of it, so I concentrated my efforts on my own evidence (of which I submitted only a part), and - with few exceptions - only posted where I was pinged [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] or to request an extension. [19] [20] I kept the committee appraised on some of these events, so my silence would not be read as a lack of things to say.
At some point in the past I submitted to T&S that I am an open book, and suggested that ArbCom examines server logs and conducts interviews by Zoom. I always held that I'm willing to face any accusation, given the proper conditions; but I also said, when the case begun, that by participating I'd be drawing the ire of others, and may not have the time to respond to it all. As the case closed I asked for direction - what to focus on - and answered the one question I was asked to the best of my ability.
Then two days ago I discover, to my chagrin, that the committee had taken the word of an established liar - a five-year "sockpuppet" who's been caught lying about sources and about content, about other editors and about themselves; whose editing was characterized as early as 2018 as highly problematic towards Jews; who was the reason I told Barkeep in 2021 that the committee should "reward honesty and penalize dishonesty"; and - as it turns out - who was just one of 74 (!) such accounts operated by the indef-banned Jacurek. His and Volunteer Marek's - an editor facing a potential indef site ban, whose editing was characterized by Wug "intellectually dishonest" - is all there is against me, and they were accepted without giving me the opportunity to respond. Based on that the committee is proposing that I get banned for a year from a topic area that I left almost two years ago, for events that mostly took place even before that (if at all). To say that I am flustered and disappointed would be an understatement.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to write here. I can debunk GCB/Jacurek and VM's claims one-to-one, as well as FoFs 10-11, and the claims made there and in PRs 4 and 7, but I'm not sure it won't get "hatted" as "analysis" ( Barkeep49?). In the meanwhile I'll just say this: I've spent thousands of hours working in this topic area, have acquired over a hundred books, and read countless papers on its subjects. I am the top contributor to Żegota, Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study and Havi Dreifuss (both of which I created); the second-from-top contributor to Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, Home Army, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Szmalcownik, Szymon Datner, The Forgotten Holocaust, Warsaw Ghetto and Golden Harvest (book); among the top five contributors to Racism in Poland, Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today Act of 2017, Jedwabne pogrom, Jan Grabowski, Żydokomuna, The Holocaust in Poland, Institute of National Remembrance, Jan Żaryn, Property restitution in Poland (which I created), The Undivine Comedy, History policy of the Law and Justice party, Hunt for the Jews, New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship, Jew with a coin, Peter Stachura, Krzysztof Jasiewicz, Operation Antyk, Such a Beautiful Sunny Day and Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin; and among the top ten contributors to with the Axis powers Collaboration with the Axis powers, Koniuchy massacre, History of the Jews in Poland, Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, Warsaw concentration camp, Józef Lipski, Jan T. Gross, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, Zygmunt Krasiński, German retribution against Poles who helped Jews, John Radzilowski and Thaddeus Radzilowski. I'm also one of the top contributors to articles in adjacent topic areas, such as LGBT rights in Poland, Polexit, John Demjanjuk, German rearmament, Islamophobia in Poland, About the Civilization of Death and Joachim Brudziński. I've done my bit for the encyclopedia, and I'm content with that. François Robere ( talk) 21:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I have never "hounded" anyone, nor reneged on any agreement that I made, "official" or otherwise.
MyMoloboaccount was a long-time editor [21] who had a well-known tendency to introduce errors into his edits. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] He also had a tendency to fight the same fight over several articles, so you never knew if some discussion was truly over, or if he just moved it somewhere else (cf. WP:FAITACCOMPLI; see for example this on property restitution, these on German academics, [30] [31] [32] and this on the relative ordering of Holocaust victims). This meant that a lot of editors were "on the watch" for his edits, and for some time during 2019/2020, so was I. I didn't "chase" him around, nor was I trying to cause him any grief; I just checked his contribs every few weeks, looked for any problems, and either fixed them myself or asked him to do it. Back then I didn't think it was a problem, but today I understand how it could've stressed him, and during the April 2020 events I promised RexxS to "avoid [his] 'contribution list' for the next few months". RexxS replies with "I think we are coming to an understanding", and later added: "I'd really prefer it if you managed to keep away from GCB and MMA forever, but I won't try to enforce that" (more on GCB below). To me this was very clear: I was to avoid MMA's contribs, and show common sense everywhere else. I did exactly that, but it didn't seem to matter: MMA kept believing he was being followed, and despite experiencing medical issues [33] would still appear for difficult discussions and votes, [34] until he eventually broke down in a very public and sad way in January of last year. [35] In retrospect I believe he should've been treated as a WP:CIR case; why that didn't happen is a question for another discussion.
Note that RexxS was "desysopped" in March 2021 for conduct not unlike that which they displayed on my TP. [36]
Background: Jacurek's beliefs and editing practices
|
---|
In retrospect this all sits well with Jacurek's first TP post, [55] which was deleted as an "antisemitic rant". [56] In June 2018 Sandstein stated his suspicion that GCB was "using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources", and later that they are a "single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to (as far as I can tell) making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles". [57] He subsequently T-banned GCB, but it didn't stop them from editing on these subjects:
|
My interactions with GCB/Jacurek bore some similarity to my interactions with with MMA, and if you read the "background" section it should be eminently clear why; but there was also one important difference: Jacurek also followed me; and despite overwhelming evidence, he never admitted it. I gave examples of this a few times before,
[63]
[64]
[65] and I'm providing more below.
I had no clear agreement with RexxS regarding Jacurek like I had regarding MMA, but I still avoided them for several months, during which they lost an AE appeal and were blocked for ban violation.
[66]
[67] It was only in late July that I resumed my interaction with them, while still avoiding their contribs: I left a comment at an AE request filed by Notrium (who, as it turns out, was contacted by Piotrus off-Wiki). The admins decided the request didn't have merit, and a
WP:BOOMERANG ensued; and though I'm still not convinced all of them were up for naming me one of the banned parties,
[68]
[69] Guerillero decided to make the ban three-way.
[70] At first I didn't like the idea - I was concerned that a ban could be "weaponized" against me
[71] - but by May 2021 my opinion had changed, and I refused to have it lifted.
[72] I was being harassed by VM, and often had to deal with Piotrus and MMA as well, and was hoping that keeping the ban in place would save me the trouble of dealing with GCB/Jacurek as well. It didn't quite work out this way.
More examples of Jacurek following me
|
---|
|
You will note that:
Shall I take this to its logical conclusion? François Robere ( talk) 21:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I've been sanctioned three times over the 3.5 years that I was active in the TA, twice of which over Jacurek's involvement:
I would also like to note, again, that our admins have been consistently negligent in protecting this encyclopedia from ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism. The fact that Bella is still allowed to comment anywhere even vaguely related to Jews and Jewish history... is a sign of their failure.Today I wouldn't phrase it as I did then, for two reasons:
And that's all there is: three sanctions in 3.5 years, the last from almost two years ago, none of which for "repeating offenses", and two of the three for trying to deal with a manipulative, indef-blocked editor that shouldn't have been here to begin with. François Robere ( talk) 23:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I was really surprised to see Jan Żaryn cited for WP:IDHT. This reading is diametrically opposite that of G&K, and I suspect most of the editors who were involved.
Żaryn's WP:STUB was created by Piotrus in 2019. [96] It remained fairly stable until April 2021, when an editor called Mhorg appeared and added some items from the media. [97] They were reverted by VM, [98] who explained the reversal by - among others - accusing Mhorg of trying to "turn the article into an attack page". [99] A discussion developed with the following editors:
The first advancement came when Szmenderowiecki translated what is now ~80% of the article from pl.Wiki. [101] Of course, VM deleted about a tenth of that in the span of three minutes, less than an hour after they finished. [102] [103] [104] Nevertheless, Szmenderowiecki's work served as the basis for the rest of the discussion.
By June many of the problems have been resolved, but there were still a few that "resisted" resolution; I didn't think it likely that more discussion would change that, so I suggested we move from discussing the points, to drafting an RfC. [105] The goal at this stage wasn't to reach consensus (though it would've been nice if we had), just to draft a document with which we could solicit community input. In other words, we didn't have to agree on everything at this point, just on what we were going to ask.
The drafting process was straightforward: present a draft, ask for feedback, act on the feedback, then present another draft; if agreement was reached - excellent; if not, then that bit goes into the RfC. Everyone took part in this process, including Piotrus (21 comments) and LS (~100 comments); they raised a lot concerns, but also approved a lot of the changes (Piotrus: [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]; LS: [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118]). It looked like we were making progress!
Then by mid-July the discussion had died out. Piotrus and LS withheld their approval in the last moment, [119] GCB/Jacurek was all over the place, VM was still attacking everyone, and LS was either insulting others [120] [121] [122] [123] or out on tangents. [124] Mhorg and Szmenderowiecki were still around, but it seemed CPCEnjoyer has had enough.
Should I have let it go at this point? Maybe, but that would've meant that WP:STONEWALLING and WP:PAs trump WP:CONSENSUS, and that all of the work put by everyone was for nothing, so I decided to just post the RfC and get it over with. It wasn't my best work, I wasn't happy with it, and it didn't close; but if there's one proof it wasn't just me "not getting it", then it's the fact that it did get the votes. Piotrus, Lembit Staan, Mhorg, Szmenderowiecki, CPCEnjoyer, and other uninvolved editors all voted for inclusion, in part or in whole. We did have consensus.
I summarized the affair like this: [125]
We started this discussion almost three months ago from a virtually empty article. [126] Some editors were throwing accusations from the get go, [127] but actually contributing to the text? Expanding it? Finding sources? Suggesting alternatives? Translating? Helping the newbies? That's a whole different thing, and much harder to do than just fling accusations. Several futile arguments later I decided to start a pre-RfC a discussion, [128] and after weeks of soliciting input from editors, and repeatedly asking and getting the okay (eg. for section 1: [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134]) - I submitted the RfC. It's long and imperfect, but if anyone thinks they could do it better under these circumstances, they're more than welcome to try.
And this how Szmenderowiecki summarized it: [135]
There's no wonder no one wants to close this discussion because it's such a mess. The thing is, even after a month of forgetting about the article's existence and all that, my general assessment does not change. Exclusion of information... deletion of sources... exclusion of duly sourced statements, electoral tables and even removal of his status as Senator from the lead (sic) are all absolutely unacceptable, and no policy encourages deletion of such information. This seems to be not even an issue of deletionism v. inclusionism but of deletionism gone amok.
Yes, ultimately the editors opposing inclusion got what they wanted - any material that could be seen potentially offending... is no longer there for various reasons... [And] because no one wanted to hear about WP:PRESERVE at the time the info was deleted... any attempt to restore it will require passing an WP:ONUS challenge, which is in fact misuse of the tool, because ONUS requires that people hear each other instead of hurling accusations every other edit.
It's not because I haven't done mistakes here - I have, but again those that I was aware of have been solved... but it takes two to tango, and it seems that not only they didn't want to tango, but also they tried to stomp on the feet of those inviting to do so.
VM had a different point of view. When an uninvolved editor, who probably didn't know the effort it took to get there, joked about how the RfC was written, VM replied: [136]
Lol. User:François Robere, he didn't even sign it. Volunteer Marek 18:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
PS: This whole process was accompanied by two RSN discussion - one before and one after, and both utterly destroyed VM's position. To quote one editor: "no-one in their right-mind would call the biggest newspaper in Poland 'partisan', nor an award-winning investigative journalist." François Robere ( talk) 23:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
The Fof claims that "François Robere and Volunteer Marek have repeatedly come into conflict with each other. Each has displayed uncivil behavior towards the other editor and engaged in battleground behavior about the other's edits and comments." VM followed me around, attacked me again and again, accused me of conniving with an "indef-banned editor", derailed discussions I started, created a 10kb attack page about me, ignored repeated warnings from admins, and didn't stop even when he knew his behavior was severe enough for me to have left the topic area and emailed T&S. If there's any evidence that this was in any way reciprocal, I'd like to see it now. François Robere ( talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
And one more thing: while going through my emails I came upon a correspondence with WP:OVERSIGHT from 2 February 2020. VM had accused me of "hanging out" and "cheerfully supporting" Icewhiz, who he claimed had threatened to harm his children. I asked Primefac to WP:SUPPRESS those revisions as libelous, but they stated that no "outing" has been done, and instead redirected me to WP:PNB. I've thus gone through the length of means this community has to offer to harassed individuals: noticeboards, admins, arbs, "oversight" and T&S, all turning out to be useless. François Robere ( talk) 17:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
No evidence has been provided that shows that VM's severe "hounding" and harassment of myself was in any way reciprocal, while it clearly establishes that I went through all possible venues to address it, before eventually leaving a topic area I was been involved in for 3.5 years. This PR has no justification whatsoever; it adds insult to injury, and sends a difficult message to anyone else facing harassment from an established editor: WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE won't help you, so you better just leave. François Robere ( talk) 18:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
A couple of months ago, one arbitrator — SilkTork — wrote at his t/p:
One of the things I am considering is gathering the evidence to propose that The Journal of Holocaust Research is listed as a non-reliable source. But for that I would need the time to read though a reasonable sample of the work they have published over the past 12 months. I doubt I'll have the freedom of time to do that while also helping out on the case.
I am interested in knowing whether SilkTork (1) still plans to embark upon such an endeavor and (2) believes such a preconceived view of the G&K article and the journal will affect his ability to make a fair assessment in this case. This is NOT a request for recusal. TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@ CaptainEek: can you explain the "ample evidence"? I'm looking at the evidence page and I see exactly one diff of me saying something bad to VM, and I think that one diff is the only diff in evidence and the only one in existence. What else are you looking at besides that one diff? Levivich ( talk) 21:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
...but that's not in evidence (and there is no evidence of that)I based the "bad blood" comment off of some stuff that was on "arb ground", like Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_Levivich and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Icewhiz_banned. Of course you aren't directly arguing with VM there, but the comments you are making are pretty critical of him. I remember the Icewhiz ban announcement pretty well as I had commented there. I was surprised, as I had thought he was a good editor when I came across him at AfD and I hadn't followed exactly what he had done.
I realize that I have spent a fraction of the time that you (Arbs) have spent pouring over everything in this case, but I feel like the My very best wishes iBans are more punitive than preventative. I do not see anything in evidence which indicates that they have been disruptive in their interactions with VM or Piotrus outside of this case. Seeing how the remedy would go into effect only once the case closes, I do not see what disruption it would be preventing. They have a positive relationship with the two editors, so it would not prevent constant bickering. And if MVBW is tbanned, they would already be unable to participate in a future appeal by VM.
Again, you have spent much more time than I have on this matter; I might be totally missing something. But I do not currently see how those iBans would be productive. (On the other hand, using iBans to prevent disruption when the parties are too friendly with one another is a welcome innovation.) House Blaster talk 05:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I do think Levivich has a fair point that there was like a day (unless I'm missing something) between the iban being made permanent as a proposal on this page before people started voting on it. I don't usually follow full ArbCom cases, is this normal? It does make me feel a bit uneasy. How exactly was he supposed to defend himself when it's out of the blue like that? If he can only respond when his fate has already been decided? I can understand why he's upset. I'd likely feel the same in his shoes. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
search "Lightbreater" in WP space don't give many results, "Lightbreather" is correct. ibicdlcod ( talk) 05:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
FOF#10:
François Robere has at times shown a failure to get the point. (e.g. Jan Żaryn evidence summary)
The linked summary does not have anything - favorable or adverse - about FR, except that he started a RfC. TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Levivich is absolutely correct. Arbcom assuming and making permanent this IBAN is genuinely bizarre. Half of the evidence for it is that he received the temporary IBAN. That isn't evidence! If SFR wants to make it indefinite, he should, but what the hell does Levivich even put in an appeal when the 'evidence' Arbcom considered for the ban is "you received the ban." It's a bureaucratic nightmare.
The Arb responses have all been introducing huge swathes of conduct that aren't actually on the evidence page as proof that "well, we were gonna do it anyway." Then you should have! Not doing so means there's no paper trail. Now you have your reasons, but does he need to cite THIS page in a theoretical appeal? "Aha, well I'd love to link a diff to the evidence page of the Arbcom case I've been sanctioned in, but actually all the evidence against me is in Proposed_decision(Talk)." How ridiculous does that sound? How many times has anyone on this committee tsk tsk'd an editor about "we only consider the scope to be what's presented on the evidence page, if you don't present it to us, well..." Follow your own rules. Shameful. Parabolist ( talk) 02:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Re: FoF 13 & PR 8.
Concur with the thoughts of uninvolved editors above that this remedy seems disproportionate & inequitable. The Evidence Summary supporting the FoF consists of two items: 1. A comment, at WP:COIN, by VM, which focuses firmly on contributor not content. This is not evidence against Levivich; 2. The existence of a temporary 2-way I-ban, placed by SFR; trigged by a comment by Levivich. That comment, while clearly outside acceptable standards, has been struck and apologised for. This is evidence against Levivich, but it is evidence of an isolated incident, not of a pattern that requires sanctions.
Absent evidence of a pattern of disruptive interaction in Levivich's editing history, the conclusion that an I-ban sanction is required to address this (unevidenced) behaviour seems, therefore, poorly founded.
That one of the editors is happy to accept a 2-way I-ban is not a factor in it's favour. That that editor has a decade long history of sanctionable behaviour, and of uncivilly focusing on contributors rather than on content, and the historical pattern of editors working in support of each other, are factors against.
Rotary Engine talk 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I find it odd and dispiriting to see My very best wishes sanctioned for, essentially, participating vigorously in this process. There is no evidence of wrongdoing on his part when it comes to the mainspace. Arbitrators should think carefully about what sort of precedent this sets. — Biruitorul Talk 06:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Jehochman. This is not a manichaean world of black and white. There are two parties here who are seen to be upset about 'nationalist distortion of holocaust history' Norman Davies for one considers that ethnonationalist bias inflects also the side you describe implicitly as the good guys who get these extremely complex historical issues right, and that Poles find attempts to describe them negatively as mere 'bystanders' to the holocaust, deeply offensive. Arbcom is not here to to endorse either approach, but to examine editorial behaviour regardless of background. Nishidani ( talk) 13:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)
Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023
Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk), Firefly ( Talk), MJL ( Talk), ToBeFree ( Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk), Primefac ( Talk), Wugapodes ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Given that Levivich is mentioned only in connection with Volunteer Marek and VM is mentioned in connection with a lot of issues, I'd urge the committee not to make permanent the two-way iban. I'm not really sure the temporary one was a helpful move at the time, even. I get that these two have a difficult time with each other, but ibans are really hard on editors, and I don't think they should be placed on otherwise useful editors unless really necessary. I don't think this one is. Valereee ( talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Barkeep49 I think you meant to link to this diff [3] in this comment. Volunteer Marek 19:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
It is extremely hard for me to reply to Wugapodes' comment calmly, as in that comment Wugapodes blatantly accuses me of "intellectual dishonesty", something that if it was posted by a non-Arb in any other setting would most likely result in the poster getting sanctioned. But this charge is so serious that I feel I do have to address it. Piece by piece if necessary:
The clearest example of this issue is likely the 2021 dispute at Zygmunt Krasiński. Amidst a content dispute (featuring conduct interesting in its own right) another editor raises concern that VM's edits have "removed all mention of antisemitism". This is verifiably true. I searched the page for the substring "semit" which would match phrases like "antisemitic", "antisemitism", "antisemite", and similar. This substring does not exist on the page after VM's edits. 30 minutes after that comment, VM starts editing again to, among other things, add back in mention of the subject's antisemitic views. This would be fine, of course, we make mistakes and making changes in response to talk page feedback is what we ought to do. After this, VM replies I didn't "remove all mention". It was still there. I re-add an extra sentence just to make you happy. Please stop misrepresenting my edits which blatantly misrepresents the state of the article. Perhaps he was mistaken and thought there were mentions when there weren't?
I didn't "remove all mention". It was still there. I re-added an extra sentence just to make you happy. Please stop misrepresenting my edits.Very literally before your edit it had the phrase and after your edits it didn't and your response doesn't actually tell someone where (in your mind) it was still there. And admitting someone else is right is a great way, in my experience, of helping find consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
His analysis section on the claim went into great detail in order to support his claim that the area has improved, and a hallmark of this argument was that there were exactly zero AE reports [bolding in original] in 2022. So confident was VM in this claim that, when asked for data, he gave us his data for every year except 2022. To be completely above board, I took issue with VM's methodology for how it counted data and the potential to miss things; VM did not take kindly to this, going to other sites to complain about me, but to his credit he did improve his methodology somewhat. I bring this up to juxtapose his reaction to my methodological challenge with the fact that, as we later found out from evidence, there was an AE report in this topic area in 2022 and VM had participated in it. This was, partly, my concern as I pointed out in my comment that Marek did not count an AE report from 2023 in which he had participated. Why would VM not know about this 2022 report? If his methodology was sound, he should have seen it. I can't know what he thought of it because, unlike every other year, he didn't give us his data---strangely, the data he withheld is for the exact year where his claims didn't line up with his data. Given the totality of evidence I have seen during this case, I do not believe this is a coincidence; I believe it is part of a pattern of intellectual dishonesty.
A list of every single AE report in 2022?Yes because that's precisely what you did for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 but now you are incredulous that I wanted you to do what you did for every other year? This goes precisely to the point you're trying to rebut. You act is if I'm being unreasonable for asking you to do what you did for every other year of data because it is wildly suspicious that an academic decided to not report the data he reported for every other year when that data contradicts his claims. — Wug· a·po·des 21:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Do you seriously think I would LIE about ONE vs ZERO AE reportsYes, I was very clear about that point. — Wug· a·po·des 21:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
On the basis of no evidenceI provided multiple paragraphs of evidence. Once again, evidence of my point. — Wug· a·po·des 21:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you did, not "evidence". At best your multiple paragraphs show that [...] I said something that was wrong here or thereSo you mean evidence? — Wug· a·po·des 21:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
but at the very least either VM or a confederate was engaged in logged out sockingAnd now I'm being accused of sock puppetry! I have NEVER sock puppeted. Never ever ever ever. I don't have any "confederates". The person socking in that episode was this account, indef banned for LTA and that was who I was reverting. There was also this IP but for all we know that could've been Icewhiz just stirring things up. In case Wugapodes is confused and believes that simply a Polish IP address indicates that this was me, let CUs assure him that I don't live in Poland. To take someone else's socking and try to blame me for it is... I'm not even going to say it. Volunteer Marek 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
sock, or get a confederate to swoop in and continue the edit war.Another completely unfounded, false, and extreme accusation based on...nothing. Nothing in evidence. Nothing anywhere. Let me repeat: in my 17 years of Wikipedia editing, I have NEVER sock puppeted. Not once. Not twice. Never. I can't believe I am being accused of this and the fact that this accusation is even being made by Wugapodes speaks volumes. Never mind the fact that this is the very dispute where a DIFFERENT user was supporting an actual, real to life, veryobvious,later confirmed, sock puppet of a long-term-abusive editor that I was reverting, and Wugapodes somehow chooses to ignore that part completely. Volunteer Marek 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
In 2010, VM authored the essay Volunteer Marek/Edit warring is good for you. Whether he still subscribes to that belief is, for the moment, immaterial. The reason I lead with this is to point out just how far back this behavior goes.Here is the essay, written over twelve years ago. The very first sentence of the essay is Ok, I don’t mean that literally – I just wanted a heretical headline. The essay is obviously tongue in cheek (though it makes serious points as well). Wugapodes' presentation of it here speaks for itself. Volunteer Marek 21:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
For context, this essay was written less than two months after his topic ban from Eastern European Mailing List was rescinded by this committee. Read that essay with that context in mind. Does it read like an essay from an editor who, fresh off a restriction, has learned to abide by our policies?That it was tongue-in-cheek is not lost on me and precisely why I suggest reading it in the context of you being fresh off a restriction. Of course, this wouldn't let you paint me as unreasonable and selective. — Wug· a·po·des 21:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
pretending the essay says something that it doesn't say [...] based on just the titleand yet I said
Read that essay with that context in mind.I think it's plainly obvious that I was considering more than the title. Once again, my point. — Wug· a·po·des 22:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
What I mean is that some edit warring is good.[...] Some of the best articles on Wikipedia have gone through some serious edit wars. And they are better for it. An edit war – having somebody revert, challenge and fight you every inch, every word of an article – forces you to go to the sources.[...] Content creating editors are supposed to find reliable sources for every single piece of text they write. And edit warring is exactly the competitive process which makes sure that they do that.So these lines, where you say explicitly "what I mean is", are in fact jokes and not what you mean? The portions where you lay out the benefits of edit warring, an argument that follows from that thesis, is a joke? Your conclusion, where you say that edit warring is the process by which one can achieve the benefits you describe in the essay, that's just a joke? The whole things a joke and has no meaning at all? You wrote that whole things because you actually believed edit warring was bad (and then continued to do it for multiple years anyway)? I should, given all of that, conclude that you actually do care about the behavioral policy on edit warring because this essay is just one big joke? — Wug· a·po·des 22:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I do think highly contentious articles which tend to see a lot of edit warring ultimately end up as a result with better sourcing.Is this belief why we have in evidence multiple instances of you edit warring in the years since then? Would that not exemplify my point exactly? — Wug· a·po·des 22:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I also want to note, in general and addressing all arbs and commentators, that by writing that super long massive piece of text - something I’ve *never* seen done in an ArbCase before - in which they accuse me of “intellectual dishonesty” and of sock puppetry (still can’t believe this is actually an accusation!), accusations none of which are or were actually made during either the “Evidence” or “Analysis” phase of the case, Wugapodes put me in an impossible position.
Either I respond to these very extreme accusations in which case it looks like I’m being argumentative, or I leave them alone, giving credence to them by silence. I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
I have never sock puppeted, contrary to Wugapodes evidence free claims, and if I did make errors or said something that wasn’t correct or imprecise, it wasn’t because I was lying. Volunteer Marek 23:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
In interest of full disclosure: I have emailed User:Newyorkbrad because I regard the above accusation to be so extreme, unfair and unfounded. I have asked them to comment here after seeing that they made a placeholder section. Whether they choose to say anything or what they say, is obviously up to them. Reason I asked them in particular is because they already made a placeholder section and because they have been here for a very long time and because they are an editor I have utmost respect for. Volunteer Marek 23:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Arbs - I have no issue with a 1RR restriction or the "consensus required" provision. Volunteer Marek 20:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Izno & User:GeneralNotability re 6.4, just make it “1 comment per talk page per 24 hours” rather than “per level 2”. That will make it simpler to follow and harder to game. And honestly, I can’t think of a situation which would absolutely require more than 1 comment per day. Volunteer Marek 02:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Izno, User:Enterprisey and User:SilkTork – since you folks haven’t voted on the indef proposal. Izno has commented and expressed concern with "multiple partial bans and restrictions" and so I wanted to address these.
Taken together I don’t see these restrictions as being challenging to follow, especially since I plan on very much limiting my Wikipedia activity in the foreseeable future. I believe that their imposition makes an indefinite ban unnecessary and hope you will agree with me in that regard. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 12:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The results are slowly coming in; I suppose I was glad to see Barkeep49 not very determined to ban Marek. I could have participated in this case but have been way too preoccupied at work, though I had a few things to say about an article that also implicated me by partially quoting and misquoting me. At any rate, I urge the arbs not to vote on a project ban for Marek, whom I've known for a while; I blocked him once for refusing to listen, but I also know him as a conscientious editor who takes his academic responsibilities seriously when it comes to sourcing and representing sources. I can feel that this is leaning already toward a topic ban for him, which I think is very strong but perhaps understandable, but I hope that we are not going to reward a banned editor, and another who, IMO, clearly misrepresented what was going in some of the processes in a contentious area. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 20:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Please accept my sincere apologies for commenting during this case. That was my misunderstanding. From the very beginning of the case I was wondering why I was included as a party, given that I do not really edit in this subject area. I thought this is because I knew some other participants of this case for a long time - as contributors on-wiki, not in "real life". Hence, I did honestly express my views and supported them by diffs and references to policies. I realize that arbitrators may disagree with me, but I commented exactly what I think. I also thought that arbitrators are looking for diverse participation, for people who would appear as their "opponents". Please note that I never made any impolite or offensive comments with regard to participants to this case. Now, if my participation was unhelpful (and I am sorry for that!), why no one asked me to stop commenting during the case? I would stop immediately. I did not have a slightest idea that my comments were viewed in such way. To the contrary, I sincerely thought that arbitrators requested my comments by including me as a party to the case, and I always respect such requests. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Now, if my participation was unhelpful (and I am sorry for that!), why no one asked me to stop commenting during the case?is a fair question and deserves a response. For me, it wasn't an individual comment that was the problem. It was all of the participation put together; this is why the diffs in your section are listed as e.g. or examples given because they don't represent diffs showing all the issues. So there wasn't some behavior to tell you to knock off. If someone crosses a line with a comment I will say something. Otherwise I believe parties get a fair amount of leeway to conduct themselves as they want. So in thinking about this conduct, my concern is that at ArbCom we could see evidence of this behavior thanks to the close examination of conduct at the case (and in discussions) over time and in a deliberate manner. But that's not possible in other contexts, so I'm left considering options about how to ensure that doesn't happen. And I see that my thinking and concern is shared by other arbs. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
About the first Proposed Remedy, the request for a WMF white paper, ArbCom might want to consider using language that refers more specifically to the issue of writing about the personal information of Wikipedians, rather than the more general "writing about Wikipedians". At least, I assume that this is the intention of the proposed remedy. I don't mean to imply that the white paper should be narrow-focused on that, but rather, that it should be made clear that this is something that needs to be addressed within the white paper. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm following the discussion between VM and Wugapodes, and particularly the part about VM (or a confederate) having allegedly socked by editing while logged out. I've looked at the evidence summary, and the IPs geolocate to Poland. I recognize that the checkuser policy tends not to support public comments on IPs in relation to named accounts, but I think it might be possible to give a yes/no answer to how likely or unlikely it is that there was close geolocation between VM and the alleged confederate. If, as I think may be possible, VM was not anywhere near Poland at the time of those edits, then it would have had to have been VM in one part of the world, and the alleged confederate in Poland. Given the entire subject matter of the case, it seems a lot simpler to me that there could have been people in Poland who made those IP edits, but who did so without any communication or coordination with VM. In multiple other parts of the case, Arbs are correctly taking the approach that people agreeing about content is not, by itself, evidence of sockpuppetry. It would be a good idea to apply the same reasoning here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Because they are Principles, they don't attract as much comment, but I want to say that I like Principles 2 (Role of Committee) and 3 (Limitations), as well as 9 (Source manipulation), the way that they are written. As CaptainEek correctly points out, they are important in explaining the case to the general public.
I want, however, to point something out about Principle 11 (On and off-wiki behavior). Although it's true, as written, it seems to me to get things backwards, in a way that has been bothering me throughout the case. As I read the dispute, the problem isn't that acceptable on-wiki behavior became a problem off-site, unless one is talking about canvassing, which I'm guessing is not what this is about. Instead, I think that ArbCom is trying to set up the idea giving rise to FoF 9, about it not being outing if it's part of an academic journal article. Given that you want to argue that, you should be precise in your use of language. Thus, this is about material that should not be posted on-wiki, being nonetheless OK if it's posted in an academic paper.
I'm glad that you found my suggested wording for Remedy 1 helpful.
Having suggested 1RR, I want to note that I find reasonable the counter-arguments that multiple specific restrictions begin to look more like the need for a site-ban. That's a point well-taken. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time reconciling Barkeep49's very reasonable comment under the Motion to Close, with the accusation of VM and the IP being socks. It should be obvious that Arbs should model the good conduct they expect of the community. In weighing a site-ban for VM, I urge the Arbs to consider recent conduct, more so than everything over time, and to put in context how an editor reacts when feeling attacked. Honestly, I think my gut feelings may very well be wrong, but my gut feelings are very similar to those of Newyorkbrad. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I want to add that I think that Ealdgyth's comments below hit the nail on the head, as to why it is inaccurate to call VM dishonest. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I want to thank Enterprisey for his abstain comment in FoF 9, which is an astute way of explaining the concerns that some of us have had. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Seeing various other comments about whether the VM-Levivich IBAN should be made one-way, I'd like the Arbs to carefully consider something first. VM has consistently accepted that an IBAN is appropriate, which indicates some significant self-awareness. Levivich has consistently taken the position that he is not at fault. It's for the Arbs to determine whether that's because Levivich is, in fact, faultless. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the Arbs already know about this, but I think this is interesting as information (no, I am not asking for action on it):
[10]. No need for other editors to discuss it here, just information about views of the PD that are useful to be aware of. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
16:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The unabridged
WP:OWH wording is Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of hounding, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy.
Couldn't posting a person's name and place of employment in an academic paper – while accusing them of spreading antisemitic canards – be viewed as "Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following", or a "form of hounding"? Who would want this? And what purpose does the mention of a Wikipedian's personal details in an academic paper serve, if it is not intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset
that Wikipedian? As I mentioned before, this would be very different if the editor(s) concerned were Grabowski's and Klein's peers – Holocaust scholars also publishing academically in this topic area, guaranteed a right to reply in the same venue. But they are not. The outed editors are, as far as this topic area is concerned, laypeople, like the rest of us. And that means that this is not a fair fight between academic peers.
Also kindly note that the relevant passages in the Universal Code of Conduct's "Unacceptable behaviour" and "Harassment" preambles and the sentence preceding the bullet points all expressly state that unacceptable behaviour and harassment includes everything that follows:
The following behaviours are considered unacceptable within the Wikimedia movement ...
Harassment: This includes any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome ...
Harassment includes but is not limited to: Insults [...] Sexual harassment [...] Threats [...] Encouraging harm to others [...] Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
I'm all in favour of asking the Board to revise the document or provide a clarification. But guessing what the document maybe "ought" to have said doesn't strike me as a very good idea. At worst, doing so is indistinguishable from ignoring what the document actually does say.
This said, I am glad to see the Committee addressing this issue in the Proposed decision, and I applaud the request for a white paper. -- Andreas JN 466 22:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Principle 11 reads 11) Behaviour of editors on-wiki and off-wiki are not subject to the same standards. Conduct which may be considered acceptable in the open and transparent atmosphere of Wikipedia (i.e., on-wiki) may be controversial and even unacceptable if made off wiki, due to the lack of transparency. In a similar vein, off-wiki disclosure of personal information does not allow, or excuse, a third party to post it on-wiki.
This seems like an explicit – and unanimous – rejection by the Committee of the UCoC "Doxing" paragraph, which makes no distinction between on-wiki and off-wiki disclosure of personal information and considers both equally unacceptable: Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects
.
@ Mike Peel: I trust the board will in due course take the appropriate action – either to overrule ArbCom and enforce the UCoC as written, or, accepting that the quoted passage is unenforceable, to revise it at its earliest opportunity. -- Andreas JN 466 23:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@ BilledMammal and Guerillero: I assume the Foundation would consider the recent community endorsement of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines (see Signpost coverage) a sufficient "Enabling Act". The community actually voted twice to endorse the Enforcement Guidelines. The most recent poll resulted in a 76% "Yes" vote ( 2,290 Yes, 722 No). Even if you allow for the fact that this was a Wikimedia-wide poll rather than an English Wikipedia poll, I dare say that it's almost a mathematical impossibility that the English Wikipedia vote, taken by itself, would result in a different outcome. Moreover, the Universal Code of Conduct will shortly be explicitly enshrined in the Terms of Use as well (the revised ToU will contain three explicit mentions of the UCoC) – and you know that we agree to be bound by the ToU with every edit we make here. Arguably of course this makes resolving any discrepancies between the UCoC and English Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines an even more urgent matter. But I am not sure whether an RfC on ArbCom Enforcement in English Wikipedia now can still deliver a meaningful result, given that the previous community-wide vote had a level of participation (3,000+ users) at least an order of magnitude greater than any on-wiki RfC on this question is likely to achieve. -- Andreas JN 466 15:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Dear Arbitrators: If I look at the Findings of Fact related to François Robere and Volunteer Marek, all I see is a list of things they have done wrong. Now I know it's your job to "find fault", but you managed to say something nice about Piotrus' editing. Couldn't you perhaps find a few kind words to say about these editors' contributions to the topic area as well? Unless you really think that they did not contribute in good faith, and never wrote anything of value, it doesn't seem quite right to summarise a volunteers' efforts, which included significant investments in time, even money (for book purchases etc.), simply by listing that over the course of more than a decade they edit-warred at some point, or wrote something that qualified as a "personal attack" or "hounding" according to Wikipedia's rules, or used "unhelpful edit summaries".
I think this is particularly important in this case, given the way it came about, the public accusations made in the essay (which you are at least partly disagreeing with), and the resulting public and scholarly attention the final decision might conceivably attract, but it's something that would be generally nice to see and might help to alleviate the somewhat torturous and inhumane nature ArbCom proceedings frequently assume for parties to a case. -- Andreas JN 466 12:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Scholars from both sides of the scholarly debate are unhappy with Wikipedia this week:
-- Andreas JN 466 18:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
A minor copyediting comment regarding proposed remedy 8: I suggest revising the wording to The Arbitration Committee assumes responsibility for the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek, and makes it an indefinite ban.
isaacl (
talk)
22:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Regarding proposed remedy 1: I agree with copyediting changes being done with minimal fuss. In my view, the remedy does not have to contain an exhaustive list of the details to be discussed with the WMF regarding the proposal, and the two sides can talk to each other for clarification, so precise wordsmithing is not needed at this time as long as the general scope is understood. isaacl ( talk) 23:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the proposed source language restriction remedy: I fear the takeaway will be the portion of CaptainEek's rationale stating that non-English sources are too easily manipulated. I think this is overly reductionist as quality of scholarship issues can arise in English-language sources as well. I appreciate the difficulties in verifying hard-to-obtain sources, and the risks of relying on sources that contradict generally accepted academic consensus views. I think it would be better to address this in a language-independent manner, though. isaacl ( talk) 20:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
VM has been the source of significant disruption, both recently and further back. I would encourage @ Guerillero: to create an EE TBAN as a separate remedy proposal, as I concur with their thinking that the narrower TBAN would be insufficient. However, I think that the indications of a viable behaviour set go along with their known competences, to advise against a full ban.
On the topic of principle 16, that of the UCOC, it probably is wise for ARBCOM to create a principle on the matter. The first sentence is accurate, even if I dispute its mandate to do so, given not merely the lack of a community vote but a set of flaws in the phase 1 proceedings entirely. Sentence 2 The English Wikipedia has developed policies and guidelines (PAG) that add to this minimum that take account of local and cultural context, maintaining the UCoC criteria as a minimum standard and, in many PAGs, going beyond those minimums.
I would say don't align with the actual historical truth. We didn't get the UCOC and then create some PAGs - our conduct PAGs haven't changed significantly since the UCOC was created. Instead something more like "The English Wikipedia has developed, prior to the UCOC, policies and guidelines (PAGs) that meet all minimum requirements of the UCOC and, in many PAGs, significantly exceed those minimums. By following and enforcing our conduct PAGs, we will inherently ensure that the UCOC is also complied with. Therefore, the Arbitration Committee, as an identified high-level decision making body under the UCoC enforcement guidelines, may choose to evaluate compliance with English Wikipedia PAGs"
I get Barkeep49's concerns on this matter, so a principle that lays out the reasoning that "complying with our own rules is sufficient because doing so means we have met the UCOC" while avoiding giving the UCOC a nature that it doesn't possess feels like a possible way through. Nosebagbear ( talk) 23:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia has developed [...] policies and guidelines (PAGs) that meet all minimum requirements of the UCOCis actual fact. Has anyone reviewed the documents of interest to ensure that is so? I think there has been a reasonable point that the UCOC's "thou shalt not dox" is not enshrined anywhere in Wikipedia policy, even if WP:HARASS and the line of interest are very near in sense to each other.
Curiously, I find the majority votes table, the voting results table, and the closing-the-case voting section missing up to date. George Ho ( talk) 00:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
As we all know, the Committee opened this case on its own initiative to examine the claims in an academic publication, which asserted that our articles in an important and sensitive topic-area were being intentionally distorted and manipulated by a group of nationalist editors. I understand why the arbitrators may have felt compelled to weigh in, and I do not criticize their decision to open the case. However, it is far from obvious that an ArbCom case was the best way to address the issue.
A takeaway: Wikipedia probably needs a procedure for evaluating allegations that sensitive and important articles are pervasively untrustworthy. I am not sure what that procedure should be, but I am confident that an arbitration case is not it. Brainstorming about how this type of situation should be handled in the future could be at least as important as the "white paper" the Committee proposes to solicit in remedy 1.
I'm not going to comment on everything, or even many things, in the proposed decision. The arbitrators, particularly the drafters, have obviously put massive time and effort into it, and I commend them for that. I certainly haven't read all the evidence, or the diffs cited in the decision, and it would ill-behoove me to second-guess those who have without retracing their steps, which I have no intention of doing.
My attention is caught, though, by the ban proposals against Volunteer Marek ("VM"). I'm not going to opine on what sanction, if any, is warranted against him, though I will say I was surprised to see a site-ban proposed. I suspect others will have been surprised as well, and that arbitrator Wugapodes has presented his unusually lengthy and emphatic justification for a siteban against VM at least partly in anticipation of that reaction.
As I said, I haven't read all the diffs, but at least two of Wugapodes' specifications against VM give me pause on their face. The first is his reliance on this essay as evidence that VM is contemptuous of policy and that his approach is incompatible with proper editing. This decade-old essay is an interesting piece of wiki-philosophy, which people might take or leave. Reading it with more attention to detail than it might deserve, I don't believe that WM was defending "edit-warring" in its most problematic "revert back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth" form. He was saying that controversial articles may benefit from having multiple contributors with different views, even if the cost of that is some short-term back-and-forth and contentiousness and even reverting as the editors work toward a version of the article that they can all accept. And I understand at least the gist of where VM's essay is coming from; "horrors! reverts! must block!" can be a very superficial way of looking at a content dispute between serious editors who are want to leave a well-written, accurate article behind them when the process is over. One can walk away from VM's essay thinking it underrates the need to avoid edit-warring (however exactly that is defined); but one can also read it as stressing the value of careful research and meticulous sourcing, especially when it comes to challenged claims. I wouldn't sign my name to this essay, but it is not so far beyond the pale as to be useful evidence in an arbitration case.
My other concern relates to Wugapodes' conclusion that VM was dishonest when he wrote, as background information about the state of the topic-area, that there were no AE reports in the topic-area in 2022, where it turns out that apparently there was one such report. Above, Wugapodes categorically rejects VM's claim that this was an understandable, or at least an unintentional, mistake, and tells VM "to his (wiki-)face" that he is certain VM was deliberately lying, about a patently minor and peripheral issue. Here I think Wugapdes may have become so disposed to disbelieve everything VM says—whether justifiably or otherwise others will judge—that he has become more jaded than is desirable. In this instance at least, VM's rejoinder above is a sensible one, and a minor and inadvertent mistake is indeed by far the most likely explanation.
These two points don't mean that there necessarily isn't merit to Wugapodes' myriad other allegations against Volunteer Marek, but for myself, each of them is akin to a proverbial thirteenth chime of the clock: it not only adds no useful information in itself, but it demands a reevaluation of all that has come before. I respect the strength of Wugapodes' feeling that he must make one of the most difficult decisions an arbitrator can make, which is that it is necessary to separate a long-time, hard-working, dedicated editor from our project. Suffice it to say that the it might be best for him to step aside from the dialog at this point and allow the other arbitrators to take the question forward from here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
(Note: Before hitting "publish" I scrolled up the page to see whether anything relevant had happened since I started typing, and I see VM's note that he has e-mailed me. Having written the above, I am deliberately posting it before reading the e-mail. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC))
(Added Friday morning) I just took another look at the proposed decision page and this talkpage. I'm pressed for time today, and will simply repeat that I hope the arbitrators will give careful scrutiny to the proposed findings and remedies against Volunteer Marek. At least some of the allegations and diffs still strike me as thin or explainable, and indeed some of them he has explained above, although it appears he has stopped explaining after being told that arguing with an arbitrator was not helping him. He has been an imperfect editor to be sure, but I have never found him to be "dishonest" as he is being accused of, and I've found him attentive to facts and detail, including in contentious areas. I may (or may not) comment on some other aspects of the PD later when I have more time later in the day. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 12:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
(update Sunday evening) I've spent a little more time reviewing the proposals about Volunteer Marek. There are four findings against him. The first details the record of prior sanctions against VM, and it's not a trivial list, but it bears noting how many of the prior blocks or other sanctions were overturned on review, sometimes by the admin who imposed them and sometimes on a noticeboard. The second finding relating to edit summaries is the subject of VM's first paragraph above on this talkpage, where he provides explanations that I think draw much of the force from the finding. The third and fourth findings cite more evidence than the first two; they reflect a more confrontational editing style than might be desirable, albeit sometimes under provocation, but the substantive points VM is making in these discussions usually have at least some justification.
I think any analysis of VM's editing in this topic-area ought to consider the point he made in his evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence#Ealdgyth's 2022 attempt to improve Holocaust in Poland article, which is mentioned in the summary Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary#Positive contributions in the topic area. To me that is strong evidence of good faith. Good faith, even on Wikipedia, is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; but neither is it irrelevant, especially given the nature of the allegations that caused the case to be opened.
For anyone to ask for a second look at the topic-ban that is passing unanimously would be tilting at windmills, but I'm surprised by the support so far for banning VM from Wikipedia entirely, which I would consider an overbroad and overharsh sanction.
Concerning a possibly less weighty matter, the one-way interaction ban between My Very Best Wishes and Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (remedy 5.2) might be limited, without impairing its value, to interactions either in the context of this topic-area or in dispute-resolution processes. I do not see why MVBW should be prevented from, for example, collaborating with Piotrus or VM on an article in an unrelated topic-area. And on a typographical note, in FOF #1, the title of the earlier case that was resolved by motion was "Warsaw Concentration Camp" (singular; the issue, at least when that case was first proposed, related to one specific place).
As always, I hope this helps. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I should only be grateful for having been spared by ArbCom (if that's what happened) and be quiet, but I feel the need to comment on the proposed site-ban for VM.
Honestly, I think it would be too harsh and not necessary. Please note, I've suffered a lot in the recent past because of VM's approach to editing, which is very harmful and toxic, and I do understand Wugapodes when they explain why VM is "a net negative to the project": he's undoubtedly a burden. However, he's also a resource for the encyclopaedia – because he's experienced, he's passionate about the project, very dedicated to it, has a good eye for sources and other stuff editors need to know, etc. So it's a question of weighing costs and benefits: is the net result positive or negative?
Based on my experience in the RU area and the little I know about the HiP area, I would answer in no uncertain terms that it is negative, and by a lot. However, I have often thought (and sometimes said) that 50% of the blame for this lies with VM and 50% with the admins, who for some reason seem to be almost afraid of him and fail to sanction blatant misconduct. It's as if around VM there was a kind of awe and respect to the point of pusillanimity, and I've always wondered why. Why don't you stop him? Not by blocking him indefinitely, for goodness sake, but by applying increasingly longer blocks and other appropriate sanctions (0RR or 1RR) to de-escalate or prevent conflicts, establish boundaries, mitigate and educate. I'm almost a newcomer to this community and I must be missing something very basic, but common sense suggests to me that VM doesn't need to be indeff'ed: he needs to be bullied (so to speak) by admins, i.e., to be contained and repeatedly sanctioned, until he understands that mistreating people just because they are behind the screen is unacceptable, that deceiving and escalating conflicts to push a POV is not okay, and that POV-pushing, if inevitable, is only acceptable if done with a very light touch, abiding by policies and seeking consensus.
So instead of the site-ban I would urge Arbs to consider other sanctions that are more targeted, equally effective and less harsh, sanctions that IMHO need to be applicable not only to the HiP topic area, but to all VM's contributions. In fact, for the reasons I explained here (final paragraph), I believe that the other proposed sanction, "Volunteer Marek topic banned", would be not only ineffective, but actually harmful. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 00:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The VM "lol" edit summary obviously had room for improvement. But the revert itself was a positive contribution to the project, and a lot of such reverting was needed on that type of article during that time, for obvious reasons. Furthermore, if one were to look at edit summaries by User:Adoring nanny, one could surely find fault there as well. Adoring nanny ( talk) 01:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The proposed 1RR for VM does not specify one revert per what unit of time. Adoring nanny ( talk) 12:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Izno: I would like to +1 to BilledMammal's concern. While yes, this is the current wording, there are still way many arguments at RSN about this and if it is in the realm of possibility I'd prefer a wording that made it clearer that there is nothing wrong with foreign-language text per se. It is often the case, for example, that all of the references in a translated article are initially in the original language.
I pointed out in the process of Evidence presentations that VM's analysis of AE cases was not so clear...Wugapodes summarized and expounded upon that distinction very well. Thank you. Given that he clearly omitted data in such a serious proceeding, I think "intentionally misleading" is an appropriate summary
However, by the exact same token, more examples of misleading edit summaries should be included if he's going to be cited for that under a FoF. At least two certainly are. Could they have been errors? Though it seems unlikely, it is possible. Therefore, I concur that three examples is too few to support the conclusion. Such examples should just be incorporated into a FoF regarding battleground behavior.
I also find it weak that VM says he isn't supporting edit warring with his essay. To paraphrase: "We should edit war. j/k I just wrote that to get attention; don't do that. But here are some reasons edit warring is good..." No. Just No. We should be able to have a collegial discussion about any contentious points, not an edit war. "Some articles are better because of edit wars" I suppose that's possible, but even if the articles themselves are better, the cost of such "battles" are too high in terms of human capital. They clearly drive away editors. WP:IDONTGETIT applies in spades here. Buffs ( talk) 04:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
"doubled down on it" sounds like he stuck to "no cases in 2022" even after being informed that there was a case. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.I concurred with Wugapodes's assessment and pointed out the flaw in his logic. He stuck by his comments and never altered them/responded with a correction (unlike others...listen, we all make mistakes. I've stuck comments and everyone should be given some grace when they make mistakes and admit it). Buffs ( talk) 16:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
VM has consistently accepted that an IBAN is appropriate, which indicates some significant self-awareness. Levivich has consistently taken the position that he is not at fault. It's for the Arbs to determine whether that's because Levivich is, in fact, faultless.I would argue that VM has merely accepted it as inevitable. The fact that so many people are being considered from banned contact with VM shows just how abrasive he can be. Levivich has not stated he is "faultless". If you'd care to link to a statement otherwise, I'll be happy to strike. But more to the point that many of us are making is that it's highly disproportionate to the alleged offense (TBH, I'm not seeing the alleged long string of inappropriate behavior that is being claimed here; it's not in the evidence that was presented unless I'm missing it). If anything the existing IBAN seems to have done its job. VM has been given chance after chance after chance for almost a decade and proven himself to be an irritant....about half of the Arbs seem to agree that it's worth removing him from WP. No one is alleging anything close to that with Levivich. Yet they are both facing the same punishment for the same infraction. I think IBAN with "time served" is sufficient. Buffs ( talk) 22:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
There clearly seems to be support for a VM TBan but many Arbs have voiced support for "more than just this". However support for an indefinite ban, but no less than a year seems split. While it may pass or may not (that's really up to ArbCom), might I suggest a 1-3 month block/"enforced wikibreak" rather than the infamous banhammer as a reasonable compromise that could be offered as an alternative? Buffs ( talk) 21:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
The Committee was right to establish this case, and several of the arbitrators have been tireless in their responses to participants and efforts to tease out the issues. Thank you to all of you for that. But (and there's always a but in PD-talk): if Committee members believe Volunteer Marek is sockpuppeting they should propose this as a FoF, act on it privately as a Committee, or open an SPI. It would be pretty rough if this allegation was first raised in a PD comment without being discussed in evidence or (apparently) being raised with the editor concerned. Doubly so as the PD recommends a site ban against that editor with sock- or meatpuppetry being presented as partial justification.
Please note this is not meant as a personal criticism: just a personal view that allegations on PD pages should be formally made, or not made at all.-- Euryalus ( talk) 04:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Proposed decision#Verifiability of foreign language texts. While the underlying principle of using an English source over a non-English source makes sense we should base the article, particularly when it comes to determining WP:DUEWEIGHT, on all reliable sources.
Not doing this is already an issue and a cause of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS, and I worry that the text of this principle will exacerbate this. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.
However, UCoC is just as much part of policy as if it was passed as an enwiki policy.My reading of WP:CONEXCEPT suggests that while the Foundation has the power to themselves enforce the UCoC, through office actions and similar, they don't have the authority to grant local admins the power to enforce it or otherwise require it be treated as policy on enwiki. Thus, if ARBCOM wishes to rely on it in their cases, or if they believe admins should rely on it generally, I strongly encourage them to open an RfC as an enabling act for it. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
A pedant writes:
Narky Blert ( talk) 08:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I do not like the currently mooted proposals for Volunteer Marek. First, we should not make excessively complicated sanctions regimes that burden other editors and administrators with constant enforcement nitpicking. If an editor cannot be trusted to edit properly after multiple warnings and sanctions spanning decades, why should we think that more of the same would have effect? Second, we should be especially considerate of long term contributors and give them a face saving way to get out of trouble. I think a nice wikibreak might do Volunteer Marek a world of good. Volunteer Marek has had the opportunity to propose a constructive path forward. Instead, they have posted extensive denials on this page. Regretfully, a wikibreak may need to be organized by ArbCom if Volunteer Marek does not recognize the problems they have caused and explain how they will do better. Jehochman Talk 12:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
You've voted for 4 distinct sanctions on Volunteer Marek, who has a long list of prior sanctions. This is unwise.
Just ban him for a moderate length of time, until he agrees to change his style. In this case, one side is more wrong than the other. If you ban VM, you don't need to sanction FR and Levivich. Those guys didn't behaved perfectly, but you should excuse them for getting upset about nationalistic distortion of Holocaust history. In general, you should bend over backwards for people who were trying to protect the encyclopedia content from a disinformation attack.
I know you don't like to change your minds under pressure because it invites more pressure, often improper. Yes, I get that. But this error is worth correcting. Jehochman Talk 12:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Nishidani, I understand that the Poles involvement in the Holocaust was complex. We need a scholarly and careful approach to the topic. Jehochman Talk 15:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Trying to express concerns tentatively as probably even Solomon wouldn't be able to rule to the satisfaction of all in a case like this. Mostly looks a sensible PD. Yet while accepting the need for a decisive resolution, some of the findings & remedies relating to Levivich, MvBW & VM seem a little heavy. Esp. for VM re 16.2 & the suggestion he 'behaves dishonestly'. It's not humanly possible to make > 90,000 non minor edits without a few honest mistakes. I hope Wugs considers removing that part of his rationale. It only seems to detract from his otherwise strong justification for a site ban. And it seems a gross injustice towards VM, who whatever his possible faults, appears to be a man of honour & exceptional integrity.
As Barkeep has just expressed a strong desire to see an end to folk insinuating new editors might be IceWhiz socks, it might be helpful to mention some recent developments in the broader picture, as this may allay concerns. Back in late 2017, Icewhiz was first drawn into the TA due to concern about the Polish government. Specifically with the then forthcoming 2018 Polish legislation. In the G&K paper , it states said legislation "instilled an atmosphere of fear" among scholars & educators working in the TA. The paper also quotes the Polish PM's adviser who suggested Wikipedia entries could be corrected if they were "super discreet" and able to allocate a "larger budget". But G&K's very act of publishing their paper may have changed those allocation priorities. It may have caused the Polish Foreign Office to see they might be a little out of their depth trying to square up against someone like Ice in this particular digital theatre. Every time it had looked like Ice had been beaten, he proved he was able to escalate things to a whole new level. Hence perhaps the Polish Government wanting to ensure they are less reliant on allies, & so less exposed to bad publicity. It's a bigger concern to Poland to be portrayed as anti-semitic than it would be for some other nations, due to their unique history & security situation. But there's more than one way to feel secure. Poland begun increasing defence spending immediately after Russia invaded, but it was only after the G&K paper that they seem to have gone into overdrive. Here's a FT article published a few weeks back expressing concern that Poland is now spending so much they risk severe economic issues. They're aiming to raise an army of 300,000 men. Their spending about $30 billion to support said troops with the best possible heavy hardware, like Patriots, Abrahams & Apache attack helicopters. They're wanting such quantities even US may not come through on the whole list. But that's not going to stop Andrzejczak gaining one of the world's most powerful land armies - Poland's home building all sorts of kit, spending billions with South Korea, more from sources not yet public domain, and here's a £2 Billion deal announced with UK on the same day the analyses phase closed. Someone with Ice's contacts can't be unaware of all of this, nor of the desperate fear that is driving such defence spending. AFAIK Ice never bore any malice towards Poland, he just sought to counter goverment actions he saw as worsening anti-semiticism. Given his knowledge of external events as well the remedies here, it seems likely Ice will be magnanimous in victory, similar to Gitz with his impressive plea for leniency. Obviously any absurd mentions of Jewish collaboration with the Nazis can now be removed from our articles (if any still remain, couldn't find any myself, though I didnt check the whole TA). But it seems unlikely Ice would want to exploit the opportunity the PD presents to portray Poles in an excessively -ve light. He probably wouldnt even want such a crushing defeat of Team Poland as would be the case if the honourable VM was unfairly branded as dishonest. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC) |
Perhaps I've missed it, but what is the number of votes needed for passage on this case? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
My participation in this case has been minimal as a non-party, but I've been following it as an observer. Overall, I think the proposed remedies are reasonable. Some might be more appropriate than others, but there are none that I strongly object to. I especially like the white paper of remedy one. Offsite participants in Wikipedia disputes have the potential to create significant disruption and even real life harm, whether intentionally or not, and any measure that gets ahead of that is a positive. I agree that its relation to personal information should be made explicit, but it should also provide some form of guidance on how to avoid unduly influencing Wikipedia's processes if possible. I'm hoping that the community will be able to provide input on its content, either on enwiki or meta-wiki. We should do everything in our power as a community to prevent anything that constitutes—or could be reasonably construed as—harassment, intimidation, canvassing, or otherwise targeting specific editors or discussions with the effect of changing on-wiki behavior. At the very least, we can ask that external parties make a good faith effort to avoid these things.
For the same reason, I regret to see FOF 9 being considered. Regardless of whether the paper meets the technical definition of off-wiki harassment, there is no denying that real editors were identified by name (both username and real life name) for their actions on Wikipedia, and the authors directly caused a change in on-wiki activity. Even if Grabowski and Klein are not specifically censured for the paper (as I initially supported), I would at least hope that Arbcom's findings acknowledge that, regardless of this paper, off-site content can be written in a way that changes behavior on-wiki or targets a specific editor, no matter where it's published or by whom. This won't be the last time that Wikipedia editors and disputes are identified offsite, and it's too important not to address directly. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Remedy 5.2 currently includes the phrase My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions
. This appears to extend far beyond the topic area in this case, and I really don't see a good reason why why MBVW should be banned from editing the sorts of AMPOL articles that Marek also edits. If the issue is, as described, their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek
, it would be better to make this ban apply in conduct discussions and formal content discussions (such as RfCs), rather than extending to a great series of articles where no problem presently exists (and where MBVW and Marek do not always see eye-to-eye). —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
02:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
plus ones to each other when looking broadly outside of this topic area. For some examples of this sort of interactions, see Talk:Stara Krasnianka care house attack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interaction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi monuments in Canada. A broad, one-way interaction ban does not feel like the most narrowly tailored solution here. A more narrowly tailored solution with respect to Piotrus (for example, a restriction in participating in conduct discussions pertaining to Piotrus) seems much more narrowly tailored to the existing FoF. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49 Are there any problems with the interactions between me and MVBW [11] outside of their comments about me, unbidden, in this very case? Those interactions I think are quite rare anyway as frankly, we "drifted apart" in our interests and I kind of forgot he exists until this case reminded me of that fact :> In the past I occasionally did ask MVBW, and resumed doing so recently, for comments on Russian-language topics; most recently I asked him for input regarding a saying attributed to some Russian figures, and he was kind enough to comment and provide a translation fix ( Talk:Give me the man and I will give you the case against him, [12]). I also asked him for input regarding another topic recently in the context of Russia, and found his reply interesting ( [13]). He has also, unasked, made a comment at Talk:Puppet_state#Is_Transnistria's_status_really_disputed? that was helpful, as my question there waited for a week before someone noticed it (someone, in this case, being MVBW).
For the record, we don't always agree (for example,
random AfD I noticed we both voted differently in,
another one,
one more,
and one more for good measure... and yes, there are some times we agree with, of course, as well.).
Would it be possible to craft a remedy that addresses the arbitrator concerns while not preventing such interactions as listed above?
User:Red-tailed hawk's suggsetion to make this ban apply in conduct discussions
might be worth considering. Bottom line, I do not understand why the project needs to prevent me from asking MVBW about a Russian-related topic (or prevent him from replying to me, since the proposed i-ban is one-sided?).
For additional context, please see this diff, which is what motivated me to make this very comment here.
PS. I also noticed that the Committee is considering a topic ban for MVBW. What is the relation between him excessively commenting here about editors (me and VM I gather) and MVBW's ability to edit articles related to this topic area? Which, I think, he edits very, very rarely - but a broad interpreation of this ban would make him, for example, unable to reply to my question about underground education (since that particular article covers, among other topics, Poland's WWII period). Were there any concerns raised about MVBW's edits to article namespace, or participation in any talk page discussions (outside this case, which is what FoF cover)? The summary of evidence related to MVBW does not suggest this is the case? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Few comments about other stuff:
As somebody who has long edited in one of Wikipedia's other "contentious topics", and been sanctioned for that editing, it has always surprised me how behavioral issues escalate in some of the other topic areas. ARBPIA still, obviously, has its issues, but edit-warring is a rare one. But in topics like EE/HIP and AMPOL, it remains the norm. In ARBPIA editors were hit with bans until they learned to edit appropriately, or when they proved they could not they were finally shown the door way before any ArbCom case was needed. And because the editors in these other topics get wrist slapped or outright ignored when reported, people stop reporting them, and eventually you end up with a case where editors who, by nearly all accounts, are productive and care about the project and its goals, end up being considered for site bans. VM, and a bunch of others, need to internalize that hitting undo repeatedly is edit-warring, and it does not matter how many times or over how long you do it, if you revert the same thing 4 times in a month or in a day without affirmative consensus for your edit you are edit-warring. And if he had been sanctioned sufficiently for that I highly doubt it would have continued. The easy thing for somebody in your position to do is say enough is enough, site ban. The smarter thing for you to do is to work through what would it take to retain VM's constructive and productive contributions while stripping away the problematic issues, those being edit-warring and civility. nableezy - 17:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I've been mulling over a response to the proposed decision since I saw it Thursday afternoon. All in all, I think it's ... mostly good.
Ealdgyth ( talk) 18:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
as it leaves me a bit in the dark about who this refers to and what to do if past editors return to their behavior - I won't have a clue about whether this non-remedy refers to their past behavior and what/where to go to see if I can "invoke" this non-remedy.And since others have discussed this one, such an FOF (or three) was discussed in drafting the PD. I think I would like to introduce one since I also think it would help the parties both in this area and in the wider EE area know who is on notice, but I'd like to get the ear (potentially in private) of the drafters on who they think primarily fits in the relevant buckets of "basically innocent", "evidence too old to consider (spending lots of time on)", and "evidence new enough but not sufficiently bad to get Named in their own FOFs for misbehavior".
On source restrictions. In response to @ Izno: In my opinion, the proposed restriction may fail what I call a "Glaukopis test". The problem is that many sources that caused so many problems fit "peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book etc" criteria. Indeed, many local authors writing on the Holocaust are considered as reputable scholars in their own countries, and the local journals that publish their works are formally peer-reviewed (and Glaukopsis is a typical example). It took a tremendous amount of time and efforts to come to a conclusion that Glaukopsis doesn't fit our criteria . In my opinion, the only criterion that makes it possible to screen out poor quality publications that meet all formal criteria outlined in the "Sourcing restriction" rules is as follows: the authors must be reasonably well cited by peers (outside of their country) and/or the article/book has a reasonable number of citations, and these citations contain little criticism. At least, this is a rule that I myself use for source selection, and it does not prevent me from editing Wikipedia.
On the "Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed" It seems to me that this formula needs to be specified. It is necessary to specify that it covers the whole pre-WWII Poland, which included a significant part of modern Ukraine, as well as a part of Lithuania (including its modern capital). That is important, because a significant part of the Holocaust events occurred in this territories, so the same disputes and the same conflicts (maybe, even more severe conflicts) are starting over the role of local nationalists in the Holocaust. And, similar to Poland, many local sources describe the events at a totally different angle. Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Sort of weird to see a proposal to ban an editor from a specific topic area, while no FoF indicates their misbehavior there or anywhere else in article space, and their actual problem was unproductive behavior at arbcom proceedings they were party at.-- Staberinde ( talk) 21:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
During March and April, as this case was being conducted in virtual space, in "real life" I had to deal with an agglomeration of events that left me little time to dwell on these relatively trivial Wikipedian affairs. I had not time to go over all of the "evidence", nor time to reply to most of it, so I concentrated my efforts on my own evidence (of which I submitted only a part), and - with few exceptions - only posted where I was pinged [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] or to request an extension. [19] [20] I kept the committee appraised on some of these events, so my silence would not be read as a lack of things to say.
At some point in the past I submitted to T&S that I am an open book, and suggested that ArbCom examines server logs and conducts interviews by Zoom. I always held that I'm willing to face any accusation, given the proper conditions; but I also said, when the case begun, that by participating I'd be drawing the ire of others, and may not have the time to respond to it all. As the case closed I asked for direction - what to focus on - and answered the one question I was asked to the best of my ability.
Then two days ago I discover, to my chagrin, that the committee had taken the word of an established liar - a five-year "sockpuppet" who's been caught lying about sources and about content, about other editors and about themselves; whose editing was characterized as early as 2018 as highly problematic towards Jews; who was the reason I told Barkeep in 2021 that the committee should "reward honesty and penalize dishonesty"; and - as it turns out - who was just one of 74 (!) such accounts operated by the indef-banned Jacurek. His and Volunteer Marek's - an editor facing a potential indef site ban, whose editing was characterized by Wug "intellectually dishonest" - is all there is against me, and they were accepted without giving me the opportunity to respond. Based on that the committee is proposing that I get banned for a year from a topic area that I left almost two years ago, for events that mostly took place even before that (if at all). To say that I am flustered and disappointed would be an understatement.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to write here. I can debunk GCB/Jacurek and VM's claims one-to-one, as well as FoFs 10-11, and the claims made there and in PRs 4 and 7, but I'm not sure it won't get "hatted" as "analysis" ( Barkeep49?). In the meanwhile I'll just say this: I've spent thousands of hours working in this topic area, have acquired over a hundred books, and read countless papers on its subjects. I am the top contributor to Żegota, Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study and Havi Dreifuss (both of which I created); the second-from-top contributor to Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, Home Army, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Szmalcownik, Szymon Datner, The Forgotten Holocaust, Warsaw Ghetto and Golden Harvest (book); among the top five contributors to Racism in Poland, Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today Act of 2017, Jedwabne pogrom, Jan Grabowski, Żydokomuna, The Holocaust in Poland, Institute of National Remembrance, Jan Żaryn, Property restitution in Poland (which I created), The Undivine Comedy, History policy of the Law and Justice party, Hunt for the Jews, New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship, Jew with a coin, Peter Stachura, Krzysztof Jasiewicz, Operation Antyk, Such a Beautiful Sunny Day and Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin; and among the top ten contributors to with the Axis powers Collaboration with the Axis powers, Koniuchy massacre, History of the Jews in Poland, Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, Warsaw concentration camp, Józef Lipski, Jan T. Gross, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, Zygmunt Krasiński, German retribution against Poles who helped Jews, John Radzilowski and Thaddeus Radzilowski. I'm also one of the top contributors to articles in adjacent topic areas, such as LGBT rights in Poland, Polexit, John Demjanjuk, German rearmament, Islamophobia in Poland, About the Civilization of Death and Joachim Brudziński. I've done my bit for the encyclopedia, and I'm content with that. François Robere ( talk) 21:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I have never "hounded" anyone, nor reneged on any agreement that I made, "official" or otherwise.
MyMoloboaccount was a long-time editor [21] who had a well-known tendency to introduce errors into his edits. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] He also had a tendency to fight the same fight over several articles, so you never knew if some discussion was truly over, or if he just moved it somewhere else (cf. WP:FAITACCOMPLI; see for example this on property restitution, these on German academics, [30] [31] [32] and this on the relative ordering of Holocaust victims). This meant that a lot of editors were "on the watch" for his edits, and for some time during 2019/2020, so was I. I didn't "chase" him around, nor was I trying to cause him any grief; I just checked his contribs every few weeks, looked for any problems, and either fixed them myself or asked him to do it. Back then I didn't think it was a problem, but today I understand how it could've stressed him, and during the April 2020 events I promised RexxS to "avoid [his] 'contribution list' for the next few months". RexxS replies with "I think we are coming to an understanding", and later added: "I'd really prefer it if you managed to keep away from GCB and MMA forever, but I won't try to enforce that" (more on GCB below). To me this was very clear: I was to avoid MMA's contribs, and show common sense everywhere else. I did exactly that, but it didn't seem to matter: MMA kept believing he was being followed, and despite experiencing medical issues [33] would still appear for difficult discussions and votes, [34] until he eventually broke down in a very public and sad way in January of last year. [35] In retrospect I believe he should've been treated as a WP:CIR case; why that didn't happen is a question for another discussion.
Note that RexxS was "desysopped" in March 2021 for conduct not unlike that which they displayed on my TP. [36]
Background: Jacurek's beliefs and editing practices
|
---|
In retrospect this all sits well with Jacurek's first TP post, [55] which was deleted as an "antisemitic rant". [56] In June 2018 Sandstein stated his suspicion that GCB was "using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources", and later that they are a "single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to (as far as I can tell) making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles". [57] He subsequently T-banned GCB, but it didn't stop them from editing on these subjects:
|
My interactions with GCB/Jacurek bore some similarity to my interactions with with MMA, and if you read the "background" section it should be eminently clear why; but there was also one important difference: Jacurek also followed me; and despite overwhelming evidence, he never admitted it. I gave examples of this a few times before,
[63]
[64]
[65] and I'm providing more below.
I had no clear agreement with RexxS regarding Jacurek like I had regarding MMA, but I still avoided them for several months, during which they lost an AE appeal and were blocked for ban violation.
[66]
[67] It was only in late July that I resumed my interaction with them, while still avoiding their contribs: I left a comment at an AE request filed by Notrium (who, as it turns out, was contacted by Piotrus off-Wiki). The admins decided the request didn't have merit, and a
WP:BOOMERANG ensued; and though I'm still not convinced all of them were up for naming me one of the banned parties,
[68]
[69] Guerillero decided to make the ban three-way.
[70] At first I didn't like the idea - I was concerned that a ban could be "weaponized" against me
[71] - but by May 2021 my opinion had changed, and I refused to have it lifted.
[72] I was being harassed by VM, and often had to deal with Piotrus and MMA as well, and was hoping that keeping the ban in place would save me the trouble of dealing with GCB/Jacurek as well. It didn't quite work out this way.
More examples of Jacurek following me
|
---|
|
You will note that:
Shall I take this to its logical conclusion? François Robere ( talk) 21:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I've been sanctioned three times over the 3.5 years that I was active in the TA, twice of which over Jacurek's involvement:
I would also like to note, again, that our admins have been consistently negligent in protecting this encyclopedia from ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism. The fact that Bella is still allowed to comment anywhere even vaguely related to Jews and Jewish history... is a sign of their failure.Today I wouldn't phrase it as I did then, for two reasons:
And that's all there is: three sanctions in 3.5 years, the last from almost two years ago, none of which for "repeating offenses", and two of the three for trying to deal with a manipulative, indef-blocked editor that shouldn't have been here to begin with. François Robere ( talk) 23:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I was really surprised to see Jan Żaryn cited for WP:IDHT. This reading is diametrically opposite that of G&K, and I suspect most of the editors who were involved.
Żaryn's WP:STUB was created by Piotrus in 2019. [96] It remained fairly stable until April 2021, when an editor called Mhorg appeared and added some items from the media. [97] They were reverted by VM, [98] who explained the reversal by - among others - accusing Mhorg of trying to "turn the article into an attack page". [99] A discussion developed with the following editors:
The first advancement came when Szmenderowiecki translated what is now ~80% of the article from pl.Wiki. [101] Of course, VM deleted about a tenth of that in the span of three minutes, less than an hour after they finished. [102] [103] [104] Nevertheless, Szmenderowiecki's work served as the basis for the rest of the discussion.
By June many of the problems have been resolved, but there were still a few that "resisted" resolution; I didn't think it likely that more discussion would change that, so I suggested we move from discussing the points, to drafting an RfC. [105] The goal at this stage wasn't to reach consensus (though it would've been nice if we had), just to draft a document with which we could solicit community input. In other words, we didn't have to agree on everything at this point, just on what we were going to ask.
The drafting process was straightforward: present a draft, ask for feedback, act on the feedback, then present another draft; if agreement was reached - excellent; if not, then that bit goes into the RfC. Everyone took part in this process, including Piotrus (21 comments) and LS (~100 comments); they raised a lot concerns, but also approved a lot of the changes (Piotrus: [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]; LS: [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118]). It looked like we were making progress!
Then by mid-July the discussion had died out. Piotrus and LS withheld their approval in the last moment, [119] GCB/Jacurek was all over the place, VM was still attacking everyone, and LS was either insulting others [120] [121] [122] [123] or out on tangents. [124] Mhorg and Szmenderowiecki were still around, but it seemed CPCEnjoyer has had enough.
Should I have let it go at this point? Maybe, but that would've meant that WP:STONEWALLING and WP:PAs trump WP:CONSENSUS, and that all of the work put by everyone was for nothing, so I decided to just post the RfC and get it over with. It wasn't my best work, I wasn't happy with it, and it didn't close; but if there's one proof it wasn't just me "not getting it", then it's the fact that it did get the votes. Piotrus, Lembit Staan, Mhorg, Szmenderowiecki, CPCEnjoyer, and other uninvolved editors all voted for inclusion, in part or in whole. We did have consensus.
I summarized the affair like this: [125]
We started this discussion almost three months ago from a virtually empty article. [126] Some editors were throwing accusations from the get go, [127] but actually contributing to the text? Expanding it? Finding sources? Suggesting alternatives? Translating? Helping the newbies? That's a whole different thing, and much harder to do than just fling accusations. Several futile arguments later I decided to start a pre-RfC a discussion, [128] and after weeks of soliciting input from editors, and repeatedly asking and getting the okay (eg. for section 1: [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134]) - I submitted the RfC. It's long and imperfect, but if anyone thinks they could do it better under these circumstances, they're more than welcome to try.
And this how Szmenderowiecki summarized it: [135]
There's no wonder no one wants to close this discussion because it's such a mess. The thing is, even after a month of forgetting about the article's existence and all that, my general assessment does not change. Exclusion of information... deletion of sources... exclusion of duly sourced statements, electoral tables and even removal of his status as Senator from the lead (sic) are all absolutely unacceptable, and no policy encourages deletion of such information. This seems to be not even an issue of deletionism v. inclusionism but of deletionism gone amok.
Yes, ultimately the editors opposing inclusion got what they wanted - any material that could be seen potentially offending... is no longer there for various reasons... [And] because no one wanted to hear about WP:PRESERVE at the time the info was deleted... any attempt to restore it will require passing an WP:ONUS challenge, which is in fact misuse of the tool, because ONUS requires that people hear each other instead of hurling accusations every other edit.
It's not because I haven't done mistakes here - I have, but again those that I was aware of have been solved... but it takes two to tango, and it seems that not only they didn't want to tango, but also they tried to stomp on the feet of those inviting to do so.
VM had a different point of view. When an uninvolved editor, who probably didn't know the effort it took to get there, joked about how the RfC was written, VM replied: [136]
Lol. User:François Robere, he didn't even sign it. Volunteer Marek 18:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
PS: This whole process was accompanied by two RSN discussion - one before and one after, and both utterly destroyed VM's position. To quote one editor: "no-one in their right-mind would call the biggest newspaper in Poland 'partisan', nor an award-winning investigative journalist." François Robere ( talk) 23:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
The Fof claims that "François Robere and Volunteer Marek have repeatedly come into conflict with each other. Each has displayed uncivil behavior towards the other editor and engaged in battleground behavior about the other's edits and comments." VM followed me around, attacked me again and again, accused me of conniving with an "indef-banned editor", derailed discussions I started, created a 10kb attack page about me, ignored repeated warnings from admins, and didn't stop even when he knew his behavior was severe enough for me to have left the topic area and emailed T&S. If there's any evidence that this was in any way reciprocal, I'd like to see it now. François Robere ( talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
And one more thing: while going through my emails I came upon a correspondence with WP:OVERSIGHT from 2 February 2020. VM had accused me of "hanging out" and "cheerfully supporting" Icewhiz, who he claimed had threatened to harm his children. I asked Primefac to WP:SUPPRESS those revisions as libelous, but they stated that no "outing" has been done, and instead redirected me to WP:PNB. I've thus gone through the length of means this community has to offer to harassed individuals: noticeboards, admins, arbs, "oversight" and T&S, all turning out to be useless. François Robere ( talk) 17:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
No evidence has been provided that shows that VM's severe "hounding" and harassment of myself was in any way reciprocal, while it clearly establishes that I went through all possible venues to address it, before eventually leaving a topic area I was been involved in for 3.5 years. This PR has no justification whatsoever; it adds insult to injury, and sends a difficult message to anyone else facing harassment from an established editor: WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE won't help you, so you better just leave. François Robere ( talk) 18:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
A couple of months ago, one arbitrator — SilkTork — wrote at his t/p:
One of the things I am considering is gathering the evidence to propose that The Journal of Holocaust Research is listed as a non-reliable source. But for that I would need the time to read though a reasonable sample of the work they have published over the past 12 months. I doubt I'll have the freedom of time to do that while also helping out on the case.
I am interested in knowing whether SilkTork (1) still plans to embark upon such an endeavor and (2) believes such a preconceived view of the G&K article and the journal will affect his ability to make a fair assessment in this case. This is NOT a request for recusal. TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@ CaptainEek: can you explain the "ample evidence"? I'm looking at the evidence page and I see exactly one diff of me saying something bad to VM, and I think that one diff is the only diff in evidence and the only one in existence. What else are you looking at besides that one diff? Levivich ( talk) 21:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
...but that's not in evidence (and there is no evidence of that)I based the "bad blood" comment off of some stuff that was on "arb ground", like Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_Levivich and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Icewhiz_banned. Of course you aren't directly arguing with VM there, but the comments you are making are pretty critical of him. I remember the Icewhiz ban announcement pretty well as I had commented there. I was surprised, as I had thought he was a good editor when I came across him at AfD and I hadn't followed exactly what he had done.
I realize that I have spent a fraction of the time that you (Arbs) have spent pouring over everything in this case, but I feel like the My very best wishes iBans are more punitive than preventative. I do not see anything in evidence which indicates that they have been disruptive in their interactions with VM or Piotrus outside of this case. Seeing how the remedy would go into effect only once the case closes, I do not see what disruption it would be preventing. They have a positive relationship with the two editors, so it would not prevent constant bickering. And if MVBW is tbanned, they would already be unable to participate in a future appeal by VM.
Again, you have spent much more time than I have on this matter; I might be totally missing something. But I do not currently see how those iBans would be productive. (On the other hand, using iBans to prevent disruption when the parties are too friendly with one another is a welcome innovation.) House Blaster talk 05:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I do think Levivich has a fair point that there was like a day (unless I'm missing something) between the iban being made permanent as a proposal on this page before people started voting on it. I don't usually follow full ArbCom cases, is this normal? It does make me feel a bit uneasy. How exactly was he supposed to defend himself when it's out of the blue like that? If he can only respond when his fate has already been decided? I can understand why he's upset. I'd likely feel the same in his shoes. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
search "Lightbreater" in WP space don't give many results, "Lightbreather" is correct. ibicdlcod ( talk) 05:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
FOF#10:
François Robere has at times shown a failure to get the point. (e.g. Jan Żaryn evidence summary)
The linked summary does not have anything - favorable or adverse - about FR, except that he started a RfC. TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Levivich is absolutely correct. Arbcom assuming and making permanent this IBAN is genuinely bizarre. Half of the evidence for it is that he received the temporary IBAN. That isn't evidence! If SFR wants to make it indefinite, he should, but what the hell does Levivich even put in an appeal when the 'evidence' Arbcom considered for the ban is "you received the ban." It's a bureaucratic nightmare.
The Arb responses have all been introducing huge swathes of conduct that aren't actually on the evidence page as proof that "well, we were gonna do it anyway." Then you should have! Not doing so means there's no paper trail. Now you have your reasons, but does he need to cite THIS page in a theoretical appeal? "Aha, well I'd love to link a diff to the evidence page of the Arbcom case I've been sanctioned in, but actually all the evidence against me is in Proposed_decision(Talk)." How ridiculous does that sound? How many times has anyone on this committee tsk tsk'd an editor about "we only consider the scope to be what's presented on the evidence page, if you don't present it to us, well..." Follow your own rules. Shameful. Parabolist ( talk) 02:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Re: FoF 13 & PR 8.
Concur with the thoughts of uninvolved editors above that this remedy seems disproportionate & inequitable. The Evidence Summary supporting the FoF consists of two items: 1. A comment, at WP:COIN, by VM, which focuses firmly on contributor not content. This is not evidence against Levivich; 2. The existence of a temporary 2-way I-ban, placed by SFR; trigged by a comment by Levivich. That comment, while clearly outside acceptable standards, has been struck and apologised for. This is evidence against Levivich, but it is evidence of an isolated incident, not of a pattern that requires sanctions.
Absent evidence of a pattern of disruptive interaction in Levivich's editing history, the conclusion that an I-ban sanction is required to address this (unevidenced) behaviour seems, therefore, poorly founded.
That one of the editors is happy to accept a 2-way I-ban is not a factor in it's favour. That that editor has a decade long history of sanctionable behaviour, and of uncivilly focusing on contributors rather than on content, and the historical pattern of editors working in support of each other, are factors against.
Rotary Engine talk 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I find it odd and dispiriting to see My very best wishes sanctioned for, essentially, participating vigorously in this process. There is no evidence of wrongdoing on his part when it comes to the mainspace. Arbitrators should think carefully about what sort of precedent this sets. — Biruitorul Talk 06:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Jehochman. This is not a manichaean world of black and white. There are two parties here who are seen to be upset about 'nationalist distortion of holocaust history' Norman Davies for one considers that ethnonationalist bias inflects also the side you describe implicitly as the good guys who get these extremely complex historical issues right, and that Poles find attempts to describe them negatively as mere 'bystanders' to the holocaust, deeply offensive. Arbcom is not here to to endorse either approach, but to examine editorial behaviour regardless of background. Nishidani ( talk) 13:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)