Case clerks: SQL ( Talk) & Bradv ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Opabinia regalis ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
The Arbitration Committee has directed that discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv 🍁 14:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC) |
Pre-PD release comments (much threaded) about when the PD will be released. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Owing principally to a workload arising out of WP:FRAMBAN, we are running several days behind schedule and have not yet finished drafting a proposed decision (PD). Thank you for waiting patiently. I and my colleagues are aware you are waiting and will have a decision published for voting as soon as possible. AGK ■ 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
a month late, the drafters are yet to specify any approximate timeline for posting the PD, parties are back to waging the same battles even over here ..... ∯WBG converse 12:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC) ...that there are major, important distractions that the Committee must deal with, but really, over a month late for the PD seems like it should be a wake-up call for the drafting Arbs, @ AGK: and @ Worm That Turned:. Can the community and the participants at the very least get a realistic idea of when the PD can be expected? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
|
Any word on how this motion will effect this case? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Polocaustis probably not derogatory (I believe it reasonable to say in certain contexts it could be), but it certainly is a politically charged term and unnecessarily inflammatory.
really isn't an inflammatory term IMO; it's the term used by the Polish government itself– MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I was going through the workshop and evidence phases again, and I think the committee might have overlooked further evidence in
Icewhiz's favor.
This FoF disregards a lot of context here. In
my evidence, I went over
VM's past history at Arbcom (which included sanctions that were later repealed for good behavoir). Icewhiz on the other hand, up until this case request, actually had a clean block log (couldn't find any formal admin warnings as well after quick review). Really, if he didn't waste a lot their time with trying to get Poeticbent sanctioned, then Icewhiz might have made a better case for themselves throughout these proceedings (
my proposed FoF). A topic ban is clearly not the remedy for that, though. I've rethought about this, and I think I mostly agree with
Levivich now. I propose, in lieu of selected sanctions, that my proposed
admonishment be considered as a possibility.
@
SQL: Could you please pass along this concern to the committee? –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 05:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
incompetent drama-mongermight not be similar enough to your experiences here.. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Are the Arbs taking note of ongoing affairs in the topic area? In the past week we've had:
François Robere ( talk) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@ SQL: Please alert the Arbs to an active sockmaster in the topic area. [16] François Robere ( talk) 11:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
In short, I feel the committee took the easy route - a couple of I-bans and T-bans, some statements of principle, and "cheers everyone, let's go home." The only effective thing to come out of it is the sourcing restriction, and we didn't really need a full case for that. [25] Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding of the committee's role: we view it as a "high court" of sorts, while it views itself as a narrow "court of appeals". We expect re/solutions, while they just wants to "keep the flames down". Given how long this case took to resolve, one could've reasonably expected more thorough solutions. François Robere ( talk) 00:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ SashiRolls: What do you read from this? François Robere ( talk) 04:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Opabinia regalis: Re: your comment on FOF 3: to put it bluntly, the reason this didn't become a full case earlier is because the admins are apathetic, and no one trusts the Arbs. François Robere ( talk) 10:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Winged Blades of Godric: I just want to note the overall lack of interaction between the Arbs and the parties - no questions, no answers and no regulation (or nearly none); a case in absentia, I just haven't decided of whom. Unsurprisingly, the results are contested by virtually all sides; the case is a dud, and thank you all for participating! François Robere ( talk) 12:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately since the case has happened there has been continued escalation of borderline flaming attempts and repeated behavior described in the case like attempts to minimize Nazi atrocities towards Polish population while overemphasizing antisemitism in Poland
Icewhiz ignored question what POV does it represent to state that Poland was occupied by Nazis.
This sadly paints a picture where Nazi atrocities are being removed or denied as soon as they are concerning Poles and where Holocaust is being described as some German-Polish operation.The OR goes even further to the point where 13th century Poland has been described as racist state motivated by racial ideology rather than religious strife [43](note that NONE of the sources used by Icewhiz claim the conflict in 13th was motivated by racist ideology of thought rather than religion). -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Simply untrue, scholarly and expert sources have been added about Nazi atrocities in Poland against Polish population. In return FR has started denying that Nazis genocided Polish population and engaged in mass deletion of sources and infromation about Nazi racist policies in Poland such as War and Genocide: Essays in Honour of Jeremy Noakes Jeremy Noakes, Neil Gregory University of Exeter Press, 2005(that stated In 1942 Nazi racial discrimination was enshrined in Decree on Penal Law for Poles and Jews) and others [45]. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Reply to Icewhiz
Joanna B. Michlic Therefore I also reject the perspective that equates postwar anti-Polish stereotyping by Jews with the anti-Jewish idioms What I would indeed find toxic, is constant comparisons of Poland to Nazi Germany, inability to engage in dialogoue with numerous successive Polish editors, creating attack pages,deleting any information stating otherwise,and inability to interpret and frame intereactions and portayal of Poland in any other context besides racist antisemitism. As the English proverb states: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Couple of loose notes and observations.
I confess that I don't know at the current moment how to remedy this, all I can say is that I don't believe this will resolve the issue in the long term. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Re: Francois Robere's claims and MyMoloboaccount's comments (added after comment was moved):
The first one is not even about whether 13th century persecution of Jews was racial or religious. It's about the fact that what was a European-wide phenomenon is being ascribed to 13th century Poland as if it was unique. Icewhiz and FR are actually trying to blame Poland for the anti-semitic policies of the Lateran Council. In case anyone is confused, the Lateran is in Rome, the pope was an Italian, and the council was composed primarily of Frankish and Italian bishops from the Holy Roman Empire, and Poland didn't have diddly squat to do with it. Needless to say, the sources being used (and misrepresented) do not support the edits being pushed. It's just some weird obsession here, with cramming as much negative info into articles on Poland as possible, even if that info is false and not supported by sources. It's gotten REALLY tiresome. Like two years ago. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
And it is a complete falsehood that "editors rejected the consensus of a RM discussion". That is a dishonest and disingenuous way of describing the dispute. NOBODY tried to undo any article names or move. Instead, Icewhiz basically claimed that because the name "Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" was rejected in favor of simply "Holocaust in Poland" (which is reasonable per WP:MOS) that gave him a carte blanche to go through out Wikipedia and remove the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2 wherever he liked. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
And I'm sorry, but disagreements about how WP:MOS should be applied are NOT usually "actionable unless an ArbCom case is open". That's absurd. I've never seen that. This is hyperbolic attempt to deflect from the fact that Icewhiz got caught inserting false information into an article with fake sourcing [52] and I brought up the fact that THIS kind of behavior is ... usually very actionable. He's attempting to project. "I got caught doing something bad so I must quickly make up as many accusations as I can against the other party to change the topic!". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz's newest - a detailed explanation with multiple sources is NOT a "tirade". This is just more of the same from Icewhiz. Likewise Icewhiz's disingenous "it's unfortunate" (oh yeah, sure) "that VM disagrees..." NO. I simply provided multiple reliable sources which illustrate just how fringe Icewhiz's views are and how WP:TENDENTIOUS it is for him to try to smear anyone who disagrees with him as a "Polish nationalist". According to Icewhiz that label apparently applies to American and Israeli historians (and Polish ones) as well as the US Holocaust Museum and the Yad Vashem institute. Wait wait wait... let me try this... Ahem. *Clears throat*...
It is unfortunate that Icewhiz disagrees with the US Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem Institute, Timothy Snyder, Joshua Zimmerman and even Jan Grabowski,
See? Phony "civility" is easy. But that doesn't change that this is a case of WP:CPUSHing fringe views. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@ SQL: And also please alert the ArbCom that User:François Robere filed a completely bogus SPI report against me (it was under my username but after CU found, "unsurprisingly", nothing it was moved [53]). This is pretty good example of François Robere's WP:BATTLEGROUND. The decisions in this case need to address their behavior as well, especially in light of the evidence already presented.
(as an aside, I have no idea who or what these accounts are but freaking out because some single-edit-red-linked accounts made some edits and yelling about "WARNING! SOCKMASTER ACTIVE IN THE AREA!!!!" is a bit... over the top? But while we're here, I wouldn't mind if EVERYONE who's participating (whether as party or commentator) got their butts checkuser'd (in fact that should be standard policy for ArbCom cases)). Volunteer Marek 20:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: I'm not so sure that this is someone "impersonating me" - that's FR's conjecture, cooked up after it became obvious that I wasn't sock puppeting, to excuse his filing the report against me. I don't know... maybe? Also, I wasn't shouting, I was parodying the shouting of others, and I know that there's no chance whatsoever that my proposal for check usering everyone in an ArbCom case would ever be accepted.
@ François Robere: - the "bogus" part is that you filed it with bogus accusations against me. Volunteer Marek 03:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@ SQL: @ L235: It is my understanding that while the parties subject to the IBAN "may post responses to the PD directly on the PD talk page" they need to do so without pinging or responding directly to the other party. I presume that the IBAN also would cover attempts to introduce new material as "evidence" that has not been mentioned in either Evidence or Workshop previously, or that has not been subject of the PD. Basically, the statements should address the PDs, and not seek to initiate new disputes. Is that correct? Volunteer Marek 08:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ SQL: Remedy 3.3.6 should be a "Finding of Fact" rather than a "Proposed Remedy", since it doesn't actually propose anything, no? Volunteer Marek 06:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Overall I think these FoFs accurately reflect the evidence that has been submitted by parties (whether that evidence is convincing or not is a different question) which indicates that the Arbs have read it (if that sounds like I was worrying... I was, what with the delay and all). Here are my comments on the relevant FoFs (@ AGK: @ Opabinia regalis: @ KrakatoaKatie: @ GorillaWarfare:):
Purpose of Wikipedia - agree with all of it
Proposed Findings of Fact
Proposed remedies
One thing that I do think needs to be added is FoFs and Proposed Remedies concerning Francois Robere as he's been involved in these disputes almost as much as Icewhiz and almost ALWAYS (99.3% of the time) on Icewhiz's side [56] to the extent that it's hard to distinguish their edits (though their tone is different)
Volunteer Marek 22:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Worm That Turned: @ KrakatoaKatie: @ Opabinia regalis: @ AGK: @ GorillaWarfare:
This particular PD (Article sourcing expectations) #5 is just simply not well thought out. It says: "specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers". The problem is that these kinds of sources may be plentiful for... chemistry or biology topics or even something like American Civil War but they're actually pretty thin on the ground in THIS topic. And the restriction would eliminate a whole bunch of sources which are clearly reliable and almost essential. For example, Yad Vashem [57]. YV is a "research institute" which is run by the Israeli government "dedicated to the scientific study of the Holocaust and genocide in general". It is not "academic" although many academics do work there. It puts out brief articles which are NOT "peer reviewed", for example [58].
Yad Vashem is a reliable source. It is a very useful reliable source. We use it on articles in this topic area a lot. And I don't think there's anyone here who would question the reliability of Yad Vashem in general.
But under this restriction, we would not be allowed to use Yad Vashem as a source because it's publications are not "peer-reviewed" (they're not even working papers really, more like quasi-encyclopedic summaries). That would be *extremely* detrimental to the quality of articles in this topic area.
Another excellent source which would be prohibited by this restriction: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. For example, info here. These are also NOT "peer-reviewed" publications. And it's also something we use a lot.
I'm gonna be frank here - the ArbCom simply does not have the expertise or the knowledge to be able to decide what kind of sources are or are not appropriate in this topic. That would require at least amateurish familiarity with the literature in this area. Just so you know what the "industry standards" are. But I don't think anyone on the committee has that. This is precisely why generally the Committee is NOT suppose to decide on content matters. And this restriction is like someone who knows about, say, Classical music, deciding that rock bands are not allowed to play guitars because that's not part of the music they're familiar with.
The restriction would do much much more bad than good, especially considering that the overwhelming volume of disputes is not actually about the RELIABILITY of sources, but the alleged MISREPRESENTATION of what's in sources everyone agrees are reliable.
You need to either broaden this or drop it. Otherwise it'll be "Wikipedia Bans Yad Vashem and the US Holocaust Museum as a source!!!".
I suggest you guys refer this to the community and instruct someone to start a dedicated WP:RfC on the issue.
(Someone may be tempted to argue that in those cases, like YV and USHM, we can make an exception, but if you have to start making exceptions as soon as your blanket policy is written, then it's clearly a bad policy)
Volunteer Marek 18:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: - I guess I'm just not clear on how fabricating a quote and using anti-semitic sources shows that someone has "high standards for pretty much everything". Maybe our notion of what "high standards" are different?
Also, no, I don't "feel misunderstood". I "feel" attacked, insulted, smeared and lied about. Because when someone falsely and yes, viciously, accuses you of something like Holocaust denial or "advocating violence against Jews", and they do that just to win a stupid Wikipedia argument that is exactly the "feelings" a normal person should experience. But again, perhaps we have different "standards". Or maybe you simply don't get it because weren't the subject of such smears yourself. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: there is a qualitative and substantial difference between the accusation "you are a bad Wikipedia editor" and "you are guilty of Holocaust denial". For one thing, some countries have laws against the latter, but no countries have laws about the former. For a good reason too. Volunteer Marek 19:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@
Valereee: . The incivility and inflammatory rhetoric evidence is lopsided. The ABF is completely lopsided. The Hounding is 100% on one side.
I'm sorry, I don't know what diffs you're reading but your entire statement is false and contradicts the facts. Making false accusations of "Holocaust denial", just to gain an upper hand in a Wikipedia disagreement is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more uncivil and bad faithed and plain insulting, than any, well, natural human response to such odious accusations. It's also extremely disrespectful to the memory of Holocaust victims. And out of 157 articles that we edited together, I edited 115 of them first. There's just 10 where the situation was reversed. So yes, it's "lopsided" - just not the way you claim. Fabricating quotes and falsifying statements to smear a BLP subject... that's also "one sided". And guess what, that wasn't me. Using anti-semitic sources, while demanding that other editors use only "highest quality academic sources"? Yeah that's also "one sided". And that wasn't me either. Making ethnically charged comments? Nope not me either. Inserting information which is actually contradicted by a source but pretending otherwise and "fake-sourcing" it by including a false inline citation. That one wasn't me either.
ALL of these things are behaviors that usually result in an indefinite ban. A topic ban is a slap on a wrist by comparison. Volunteer Marek 21:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93: - can you show me where "experienced editors, even administrators" referred to a country that has a higher level of freedom of press than Israel and only slightly less than US (according to sources provided by Icewhiz) as "like North Korea or Iran"? That's just so far out there in terms of reasonable views that it certainly looks like inflammatory provocation. Can you show me where "experienced editors, even administrators" have asserted that in some democratic, highly developed country it is "illegal to edit Wikipedia on the topic"? Again, the absurdity of the claim speaks for itself. Do "experienced editors, even administrators" constantly evaluate the reliability of sources based on the ethnicity of the author? No? Then that too is inflammatory and derogatory. What you got here is not some "scrutinizing sources" but something quite different ... and kind of messed up. Volunteer Marek 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
In regards to VM's comments above:
"It is not known how many Jew had established residence in Poland in the thirteenth century. That there were enough of them (it wouldn't have taken many) in the old Polish diocese, that of Gnizeno (Gnesen), to worry the Church fathers is evident from the following clause in canonical law as imposed by the Church Council of Breslau in 1266.... VM and MyMoloboaccount are seriously arguing to exclude placing Polish Jews in separate ghettos - in Poland - from racism in Poland.
"simpler is not always better if it's less informative. RfC about naming of a particular article irrelevant"), diff, diff. This action (changing links, including see-also links, to correspond to title rejected by RM) by VM would've been actionable by itself had this ARBCOM not been open.
"German Nazi-occupied Poland"as caused by
"current trends in conservative Polish nationalism. In order to highlight what right wing Poles see as unrecognized Polish suffering (3 million non-Jewish Poles were murdered by the Nazis), it is important to minimize other suffering". Beorn also refers to this as a "naming crusade", and provides ample examples of Polish nationalist discourse in this context.
Icewhiz ( talk) 05:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Icewhiz's tactics is to try and label..."- I was quoting Dr. Waitman W. Beorn (Holocaust historian at The University of Virginia) who wrote on this topic. It is unfortunate VM disagrees with Dr. Beorn. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@ AGK: - the hounding, harrassment, bullying, and name calling has been entirely one sided here. The sole place I have made comments on Volunteer Marek have been pages related to this case page - and these have been politely framed. I want to point out to ARBCOM that VM's issues extend well past Polish Jews (whom VM stated, here in ARBCOM, should not be labelled by Wikipedia as Polish in Wikipedia's lead) - but also to Islamophobia in Poland and LGBT-free zone where his disruption and arguing against mainstream high quality sources is clearly WP:NOTTHERE (beyond "just" hounding and bullying). That ARBCOM sees fit to consider sanctioning the victim of a relentless hounding campaign (which continued during these proceedidngs) speaks volumes. That diff from 15 August - which included the dergatory and racial based "anti-Polish":
For the advocates of the national-Catholic outlook the concept of anti-Polonism is much clearer than that of antisemitism. It has been present in the Polish public discourse since the late 1960s. It has even earned a definition: “external or internal actions aimed at the destruction of the Polish state and nation, hostility towards Poland and Poles, use of lies and insinuations calculated to blacken the image of the nation”. In the popular usage the anti-Polonism is limited almost exclusively to the alleged ‘anti-Polish machinations’ on the part of Jews.
[60] To further frame the context - "anti-Polish" was the label applied to Polish Jews in 1968 as the Polish government expelled almost every remaining Jew in Poland (some 100,000):
"Zionists to Zion," people yelled at party conventions, the aim being to send the country's Jews — regarded as anti-Polish — to Israel.
[61] That this threatening language that does not result in an immediate site ban speaks volumes to the health of this community in responding to highly toxic behavior. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Premeditated Chaos: - a response to the points below would be appreciated. Thank you. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz ( talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"the most controversial episode of his academic career". I should've placed one of these sources next to my assertion - however this is easily sourced.
"response in Whatever newspaper"[74]) - stating "outlandish" as fact. The Routledge book, beyond citing Kurek's book, also cited Gazeta Wyborcza for further reading, [75] but it would've been incorrect to attribute the wording in the academic source to the newspaper as the source didn't do so - it should've been attributed to the Weinbaum in Routledge (The 2006 Gazeta Wyborcza piece (which is not a response nor oped- it is a full feature published by Wyborcza with their own reporters (+credited outside professional historical help)) is also quite critical - but it uses other language).
Icewhiz ( talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Added. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
My opening preamble to ARBCOM, in the context of arbitration, was on the state of content on Wikipedia, in relation to currents outside of Wikipedia on Holocaust distortion/denial. I followed up by specific examples present in Wikipedia mainspace for years. Volunteer Marek appeared some four paragraphs down. I stand behind my assertion that Holocaust distortion content is present - and is even pervasive on Wikipedia.
In addition to distortions listed in the case (6 separate examples in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Icewhiz) - during this long case I found a conspiracy theory on an extra death camp (allegedly for ethnic Poles, death toll of 200,000 and even 400,000 per one version) present in main space for some 15 years - in 6 different articles - including top-tier articles such as Extermination Camp or German camps in occupied Poland during World War II). See User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory. I also sent to the ARBCOM mailing list (and I was not looking for this - I was working on removing/refactoring this content to RSes) - Poeticbent inserting information on KL Warschau not supported by the citation he used (in response to a citation-needed challenge), nor by any mainstream source in - diff).
Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation should be deeply concerned at this platform hosting widespread Holocaust distortion. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The evidence in
[76] - is wide ranging - and beyond an error. In
Stawiski Poeticbent actively prevented removal more than three times of content not supported by citations - I refer to
AE on this content and to
this piece by Dr. Whitcup who describes multiple attempts to correct the entry (the editor doing the reverting, as evident in article history, was Poeticbent).
Icewhiz ( talk) 06:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Struck - as not the place to rerun evidence. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Posted in accordance with note. The proposed decision draft (as of 8 September 2019), has overlooked the following points - all present in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"Kurek's views are outlandish and abhorrent- I would request your response to editors advancing self-published works (in which said views are expressed as facts) by Ewa Kurek as a source for Jewish/Holocaust history on Wikipedia - this is present in evidence - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Pitorus dubious sourcing ( diff). As well as an editor contrasting mainstream sources (and, I'd note, secondary academic sources with similar coverage and mainstream Polish media (e.g. Gazeta Wyborcza). The book itself being a dissertation rejected by a Polish university - so not only self-published, but self-published after rejection + poorly received) with far-right Polish media labeling mainstream North American scholars with the ethnically derogatory "anti-Polish" [77] [78] [79] - 22 May 2019 diff (also in evidence). The promotion of Ewa Kurek as a source on Wikipedia has been going on for over a year - e.g. RSN discussion in May 2018. Given Piotrus's involvement in a number of discussions of Kurek as well as editing the Ewa Kurek article itself - Piotrus should've been abundantly aware of RS coverage on the nature of the self-published source he introduced. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek POV/FRINGE, the following points on BLP vs. Volunteer Marek are in evidence and not in the PD:
"rant is stuffed so full of nonsense and is barely coherent, so it's pretty much a non-RS"), [81] (
"so she wrote basically a long rant about it, stuffed full of inaccuracies, falsehoods, hyperbolic and exaggerated language, failed attempts at irony and faux outrage. And that's the parts that are coherent"). Contrast WP:RSes - such as the Holocaust Studies journal [82] or English-language news media - NE Public Radio or Tablet.
"absurd"and
"utilizes ridiculous and laughable conspiracy theories". (the information itself on the The Institute of World Politics is corroborated by several other 3rd party sources (e.g. Newsweek or coverage on postgraduate intelligence studies) - as well as IWP itself (all over their website. Their main page - [85] - currently features a CIA information session on 10 September, Employers of IWP Alumni - lists CIA and DIA at the top).
"vivid and exaggerated statements to create propagandistic constructions, rather than to provide an honest picture"- language not present in secondary coverage, serious accusation, and the subject of a libel lawsuit - source.
Icewhiz ( talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek POV/FRINGE the following are in evidence and not in the PD:
"Polish"from Polish Jews. In ARBCOM - [92] - openly advocating:
"The difference between me and Icewhiz here is that while he objects to stating that a person was Jewish, he is insisting that we include that a person was Polish in the lede (this in the case of people who were both Polish and Jewish). I am saying, leave both out.". Counter to MOS:ETHNICITY.
"Pole bashing"- [97] or
"COATRACK ... disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV"- [98].
Icewhiz ( talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: Verification and Volunteer Marek's actions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes are in evidence and not in the PD:
"both Poles and Jews were classified as subhuman and targeted for extermination"- far from mainstream historiography. Cited source - a municipal website - does not contain this falsehood. Note content was challenged - diff - on WP:V failure of this segment.
"Polish families to exile"- as a prelude to their mass murder in a pogrom carried out by Poles. The source, as indicated by VM himself ( [103]), is on a different place entirely. English source: right here on page 63 (statement is without a location, and describes why
"nationalistic elements among the majority peoples"(throughout Western USSR) labelled the Soviet administration as a
"Jewish regime"). Note coverage on the event isn't lacking (e.g. Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 (published by Indiana University Press & USHMM) has a 2 page entry on the event - nothing similar on "Jewish militiamen").
"very limited"(It actually notes the opposite. In Polish - but is cited/summarized in English ( here). The sentence is also absurd by itself - an item held by 19% of Poles (per survey) is not
"very limited")
Icewhiz ( talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: - Maybe presenting evidence against an editor gone for a year was a waste of time (proceedings so far seem to strongly indicate this). But content is what I care about. As someone who understands this topic, I was shocked to uncover (in a gradual and haphazard fashion - Stawiski I fixed on march 2018, [108] and Belzec in June 2019, [109] - all the rest are spread out in between) the 6 examples in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes (and there are several less egregious examples) - I thought - evidently wrongly - these would be obvious on the face of things - present in Wikipedia mainspace for years (and some (e.g. Stawiski - actively defended vs. challenges by novices/IPs). I was even more shocked by the later (August) chance find of User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is used in schools - it's the go-to resource when school kids write a school report (well - B/C/D/F grade students who copy/paraphrase the Wikipedia article). These shouldn't have been present on Wikipedia. I thought ARBCOM would look at content - and specifically content that fails verification ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: Verification) or uses very poor sources for a sensitive topic ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Pitorus dubious sourcing). Content is what Wikipedia is about end of the day. Name calling or losing tempers - that's all on the backstage of talk pages and edit summaries (and if it is just name calling - without hampering productive work - I often just ignore it). It seems this case is basically being reduced to "two editors had a fight, lets separate/punish them" - that won't improve content quality.
(I will note that at least Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision#Article sourcing expectations would be a step forward - most historical subjects (as opposed to present-day debates over historical subjects) - that pass WP:GNG have copious sources in English academic sources). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Premeditated Chaos:, @ KrakatoaKatie:, @ Worm That Turned:, @ Opabinia regalis: - this modification is ill advised since educational material on the websites of reputable institutions (e.g. USHMM) are often of a very low quality (often changing - without a stable publication date/form, and wouldn't be used as a citation in a serious context), and furthermore determining what is a reputable institution is complex - and possible much too complex for WP:AE. Many Eastern European institutions have an appalling reputation in this regard - perhaps the best known example is the Lithuanian Genocide Centre (which is relevant to Poland - as they share a border, and modern Lithuania contains part of pre-WWII Poland ( Wilno/ Vilnius)) - which is known for promoting the double genocide myth and has a reputation of glorifying/whitewashing the Lithuanian Nazi collaborators (who tend also be anti-Soviet fighters) - who - in Lithuania (unlike Poland) - actually carried out the bulk of the Lithuanian Holocaust. (See this for easy reading on the subject. Memory Politics in Lithuania have been the subject of academic study). The same is true of some state run museums - some of which have a similar record and poor reputation. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
More of a procedural thing than anything, AGK, but I think Worm That Turned mentioned on the Fram case that he was opposed to time limited bans. He was speaking of site bans there, but I think the same logic applies to topic bans. Given how deeply seated these topics are emotionally for people, I personally doubt in a year they will suddenly not feel the same way and act the same way. It might make more sense to change it to "They may appeal after a year" or something like that, so that there has to be a discussion before the ban lapses.
Anyway, that assumes either passes, but worth raising as there has been a trend both at AN, AE, and to some extent ArbCom itself away from limited sanctions. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: You're right that I'm basically arguing semantics with denial v. distortion. "Polocaust", though, really isn't an inflammatory term IMO; it's the term used by the Polish government itself, and seems to be used by others to describe the concept:
In that diff, IW is arguing that an author was not reliable because he's "advancing polocaust, which is quite fringy". I don't see how that's inflammatory when "Polocaust" is what it's called by the government, professors, the media, etc., and the author in question did write a book called "Poland's Holocaust" [114]. Whether Polocaust is or isn't "fringy", and whether this author is or isn't an RS, I don't know, but I don't think it's inflammatory to use the term Polocaust or suggest that it may be fringe (there's at least some support out there for that, but I haven't extensively researched the issue myself). – Leviv ich 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: I'll note IW wrote above that he shouldn't have added Ewa Kurek to that category and didn't contest it, but there's at least enough Israeli media sources IMO to call it a good-faith content issue and not a BLP violation:
Haaretz calls her a "revisionist" and we don't have a Category:Holocaust revisionists, and I'm probably more of a hardliner that "revisionism is denial' perhaps than IW, so I can see why he wouldn't contest it, but not a bad-faith BLP violation. Revisionism v. denial is "shades of gray". – Leviv ich 03:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi PMC, could you expand on the two diffs you added to FOF 10 and what specifically about them is inappropriate editorializing in Wikivoice? The second diff [118] appears to have nothing in wikivoice at all, everything is attributed and cited to Michlic. In the first diff [119], the first sentence is the only sentence in wikivoice (right?), and I assume it's the word "outlandish" that is inappropriate editorializing. This word is used in the source cited [120] (a book published by Routledge, p. 38, "...Ewa Kurek, who advanced an outlandish interpretation..."). Is it the failure to attribute that makes this sanctionable editorializing in wikivoice? Also, generally speaking, the theory that Jews built the ghettos themselves in collaboration with the Nazis, "had fun" there, and that it was their first experience with self-governance in 2,000 years... we can't say that's "outlandish" in Wikivoice? Given the sourcing that was already in the article at the time this edit was made ( AP via Boston Globe "Ewa Kurek, has made claims that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II", Yad Vashem historian quoted [121] "Kurek is using the Holocaust and using Jewish history and Polish history in order to spread hate"; in the same link Simon Wiesenthal Center Director of Govt Affairs described her as a "professional anti-Semite" and "Holocaust distorter". Comparing our treatment of this fringe view, with our treatment of anti-vaxers or flat-earthers, etc., would you call it a BLP violation if an editor wrote that a flat-earther's claim that the earth was flat was "outlandish", in wikivoice?
Similarly, could the arbs expand on which of the sources in the first FOF 10 diff [122] are inappropriate sources? Editors will want to avoid them in the future. Thank you. – Leviv ich 01:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Original:
During World War II Poland was the main scene of the Holocaust ...
During World War II Poland was the main scene of the genocide of Poles by Nazis as well as Holocaust ...
Arbcom has two cases: one is simple and direct, involving a single editor and a resolution that nearly everyone agrees upon (overturn the office action); the other is complicated and nuanced, involving multiple editors and the Holocaust, with no easy solution.
Number of edits by all arbitrators combined to the Fram proposed decision page after the PD was posted: 190
Number of edits by all arbitrators combined to the Poland proposed decision page after the PD was posted: 3 ( [123] [124] [125]). – Leviv ich 19:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding ... and/or articles published by reputable institutions.
:
I think a source restriction for the topic area is a generally good idea, but not a half-baked, half-assed one that isn't based on a thorough examination of the sources actually being used in the topic area.
I'm starting to think maybe it's better if Arbcom just "no-billed" this. Make no decision at all, and kick it back to the community. And take the PIA4 case off the docket, too. If the arbitrators aren't "into" this – that is, if it doesn't have their attention and engagement – there is no point in their rendering a decision. It will only make things worse than they were before. It doesn't help to create a source restriction that you know will bite you in the ass later, just because it might work. We don't need arbcom to throw spaghetti against the wall and see if it sticks. As I said at the very outset of this case, all that's needed is for a group of editors who are interested in doing so to carefully work through these issues. Unfortunately that isn't what's happened here. – Leviv ich 15:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I have watched this case from afar and my feeling about it has changed significantly over time, particularly after looking more carefully into a couple of the articles under contention and successfully editing a couple of those pages. Two of the proposed findings of fact are problematic. As both Icewhiz and Levivich have said, I think it is stretching language-policing to the limit to characterize the words "Polocaust" and "polophile" as insulting, proscribed speech. Finding of Fact #4 should be split into two separate findings as Levivich suggests. Similarly, the citations Lev provides of VM showing no self-restraint should definitely be added to the FoF regarding VM's "inflammatory rhetoric". My initial sympathy for VM in this case was related to off-wiki events with which I have no reason to believe IW was connected (Streisand Effect of VM vociferating about being called a holocaust denier.)
I also concur with Levivich concerning the presentation of events since closure of the evidence phase (FoF #14). Not only was the edit warring report glossed over (though El C specifically drew ArbCom's attention to it, leading to the temporary injunctions on this very page!) , but the link to Icewhiz' naked block record (without mention of their AE appeal) is very misleading. bradv chose to block IW for a marginal offense, while looking the other way as VM pushed "Ethnic Poles" back to the top of the "Racism in Poland" entry (which he'd fought with IW about as recently as 11 Aug).
I can understand that IW has provoked reaction with their editing. My experience, for example, with the New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) page is a good example. The point about Polish nationalism is/was driven home with multiple repetitions and unnecessarily unpleasant / leading formulations. However, I think it is worth mentioning that I did not encounter any of the ownership behavior so common in AP2 when I tried to tone down the language. (In fact, I don't believe that I was reverted on either of the pages I edited which IW had principally authored.)
In summary, I don't want to get involved in this debate any more than to say that FoF #4 and FoF #14 should be modified: the first should be split into two separate findings and the latter should be completed to include a fuller picture of the post-workshop goings on. It is my opinion that there is some fault on both sides but that something needs to be done about an editor who regularly vents their spleen without any filter whatsoever. Again, I believe VM's comments need to be highlighted here so that it is clear what ArbCom will be condoning if they do not sanction this sort of speech:
Volunteer Marek being splenetic: A]...to push his fucked up POV of "Poles are a bunch of anti semites" which has been the POV he's been engaged in pushing for the past two years... Icewhiz's POV however goes far beyond that and displays some weird obsession with shitting on Poland B]... 1) Fuck. You. and 2) have the fucking guts to say it outright rather than insinuating it like a sleazy weasel...horribly and utterly sleazy, dishonest and scummy... this fucking asshole needs to be banned. Now. C]...stop lying about me you fucking sleazeball.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I really believe the triply templated Racism in Poland (Coatrack, POV, undue) could stand some attention, particularly the ref-stack of 14 quotes in the lede, which take up a full screen/page's worth of footnotes in the references section.
The talk page, too, is filled with love. When the question was raised of changing the name of the article to "Prejudice in Poland" or "Religious intolerance in Poland", one of my co-commenters here had this to say:
I think you are really obsessed. How about Nazi zombies in Poland?My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's been over six weeks now, and if the ref-stack (added in the days after mvbw's suggestion) is the productive result of that comment, I'm not impressed. One reference to, say, the Khmelnytsky_Uprising, or to the Szlachta might deserve at least a tiny place in this bloated list concerning racism in Poland... unfortunately the source I've been reading to learn more is not in English, though it is peer-reviewed. ( 978-2-87673-555-2)
Meanwhile, I don't know if there are any GLAM projects planned with Gdansk's WWII musuem, but... [126], [127] 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said before, i-bans and t-bans are not ideal, but frankly, I am not sure what would be better :( Few general comments:
Just want to say that I fully endorse points 1-7 made by User:Levivich regarding issues with the source quality remedy. This needs much refinement. Ideally, interested editors would create something like WP:VG/RS or others in the Category:WikiProject lists of online reliable sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Largely agree with almost everything that Levivich said .... ∯WBG converse 11:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
If any arb wishes to reply, please reply to individual bullets.
inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments? [FoF 4 :- Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric, IW's bullet]
inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments? [FoF 4 :- Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric, IW's bullet]
inappropriate speculation? [FoF 10 :- BLP violations
From what appears in the (voting) records, the basis of the decision against Davies was ..... the manner and substance of his academic interpretation of historical events occurring some 40 years earlier.Also, see this chapter.
Icewhiz has made negative edits to BLPsis grossly poor phrasing. [FoF 10 :- BLP violations
Kurek's views are outlandish and abhorrent, but we must present that in an encyclopedic way to avoid BLP and NPOV issues....If the paragraph had been worded:- "So-and-so described this position as 'outlandish' in a response in Whatever newspaper"....[FoF 10 :- BLP violations
The Committee does not rule on content(from ARBPOL) for good reasons and the mess that you have constructed while choosing to adjudicate on a content-dispute, tells volumes about why some of you might try to edit one or two articles per year, now onward. At any case, you have already drafted a safety valve at FOF-12 (Challenges in evaluating evidence); expand its ambit and nuke your motions on content. I have zero confidence that you can tackle a content dispute. FWIW, the decisions on conduct-aspects seems to be okay-ish to me. ∯WBG converse 18:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section link from FOF#14 (events after workshop closure) to Remedy 6 (delay acknowledgement)? ToThAc ( talk) 16:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Joe Roe, Worm That Turned, and KrakatoaKatie: You seem to be moving rapidly towards closure here, but there's some fairly substantive comments on the talk page that you haven't yet responded to; may I ask you to do so? I am referring in particular to comments about the Icewhiz portion of FoF 3.2.4, some of which mirror my own concerns. To be clear, I am not going to defend Icewhiz's general behavior in this area. However, working in a contentious area requires scrutinizing sources very closely; particularly when government-influenced historical revisionism needs to be accounted for. The language used in those diffs closely resembles that used by experienced editors, even administrators, in dealing with fringe material in other contentious areas. I think you need to clarify what exactly you find concerning in those diffs, or you are unintentionally going to have a chilling effect on editors attempting to clean up the very topics on Wikipedia that need the most attention. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I echo some of the concerns laid out by others, and note that ARBCOM is not reading or at least not responding to them. My concern is that after all is said and done, as evident that Warsaw_concentration_camp didn't have anything about it being a conspiracy theory until Icewhiz cleaned it up, we're now going to go backwards and becoming the clearinghouse for further Holocaust revisionism. That you're "dinging" Icewhiz for his comment on Kurek is shocking. Further, I just want to note that the only reason why Icewhiz was blocked for a IBAN violation was because Bradv blocked him for violated a supposed Iban for edits that were 1 year separated. In addition, when I asked him why he wasn't going to block VM for an even closer IBAN violation, he shrugged it off with an excuse. So VM remains, as before unblockable. Also, while User:Xx236 was not part of the case, I do think his contributions should be looked into. He has made several contributions that fall well past NPA and CIVIL and just because he hasn't made a splash is no excuse. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned that this is a combined case. In most of the FoF, there's a major difference between the two parties. The incivility and inflammatory rhetoric evidence is lopsided. The ABF is completely lopsided. The Hounding is 100% on one side. It seems like most of the FoF are like this. It makes the case taken as a whole seem much worse than it is in reality -- for either party, really -- and I think it's possible this could cause some unconscious sense of "fairness" kicking in when voting on the proposals that actually would be unfair. -- valereee ( talk) 14:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I have not been involved in this case and do not usually edit in this area (thank God!). However, I have had some interaction with editors involved in it. I do not feel that the solutions proposed by ArbCom will alleviate the problem, besides the sourcing restrictions, which I heartily support. The topic of the Holocaust and WWII in Poland appears to have a highly toxic editing environment, so much so that many editors and even administrators simply stay away. While Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz may be the biggest partisans in the fight, many other editors are also involved and their contributions do not appear to have been scrutinized at all. I also share concerns about several of the findings against Icewhiz that have already been expressed by other editors such as Levivich and Godric above. I realize that ArbCom is very busy with FRAMBAN, but this solution is no solution at all and will simply end up taking up more of the communities time in the future.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
A number of anti-EE comments show bias of some of the participants. This Wikipedia follows post-colonial Western POV. Icewhiz uses the narration to accuse the Poles and you are unable to understand your bias, because you belong to the Western culture. Similar narration describing non-EE nations would have been banned as racist, x-phobic. The anti-EE sanctions are obvious legal discriminations. Xx236 ( talk) 08:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Given that your proposed decision's locust of dispute explicitly states "This complex dispute centers on reliable sourcing, non-neutral point of view, and battleground behavior over a range of articles related to antisemitism and Jewish history in Poland, specifically in relation to World War II and The Holocaust, and including a number of BLPs of scholars studying these topics, I'm curious to know why the arbitration committee wouldn't elect to simply consider this case under the header of the older German war effort case located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort, merging the two to create a single, unified, user friendly (as it were) case concerning the overall German War Effort - which already included the Holocaust, a World War II based event carried out by elements of German's military at the time - and move to address both the Germany revisionist history of World War II (which K.e.coffman already pointed out is a known problem on Wikipedia) and the ongoing issues surrounding World War II's role in antisemitism, which have been specifically singled out here in this case. The committee, closing the German war effort case, noted in its remedies that:
"While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
It would seem (to me anyway) that merging the two cases into a single, unified Germany in World War II case would allow the committee to better tackle both of the given issues and those that have apparently repeatedly arisen from them time and time again on the English Wikipedia. Just a thought. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Please clarify. The case text at the voting tally states "The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close." The close vote is 5:0 and has been for 4 days, yet the case is not closed yet...? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Case clerks: SQL ( Talk) & Bradv ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Opabinia regalis ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
The Arbitration Committee has directed that discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv 🍁 14:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC) |
Pre-PD release comments (much threaded) about when the PD will be released. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Owing principally to a workload arising out of WP:FRAMBAN, we are running several days behind schedule and have not yet finished drafting a proposed decision (PD). Thank you for waiting patiently. I and my colleagues are aware you are waiting and will have a decision published for voting as soon as possible. AGK ■ 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
a month late, the drafters are yet to specify any approximate timeline for posting the PD, parties are back to waging the same battles even over here ..... ∯WBG converse 12:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC) ...that there are major, important distractions that the Committee must deal with, but really, over a month late for the PD seems like it should be a wake-up call for the drafting Arbs, @ AGK: and @ Worm That Turned:. Can the community and the participants at the very least get a realistic idea of when the PD can be expected? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
|
Any word on how this motion will effect this case? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Polocaustis probably not derogatory (I believe it reasonable to say in certain contexts it could be), but it certainly is a politically charged term and unnecessarily inflammatory.
really isn't an inflammatory term IMO; it's the term used by the Polish government itself– MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I was going through the workshop and evidence phases again, and I think the committee might have overlooked further evidence in
Icewhiz's favor.
This FoF disregards a lot of context here. In
my evidence, I went over
VM's past history at Arbcom (which included sanctions that were later repealed for good behavoir). Icewhiz on the other hand, up until this case request, actually had a clean block log (couldn't find any formal admin warnings as well after quick review). Really, if he didn't waste a lot their time with trying to get Poeticbent sanctioned, then Icewhiz might have made a better case for themselves throughout these proceedings (
my proposed FoF). A topic ban is clearly not the remedy for that, though. I've rethought about this, and I think I mostly agree with
Levivich now. I propose, in lieu of selected sanctions, that my proposed
admonishment be considered as a possibility.
@
SQL: Could you please pass along this concern to the committee? –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 05:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
incompetent drama-mongermight not be similar enough to your experiences here.. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Are the Arbs taking note of ongoing affairs in the topic area? In the past week we've had:
François Robere ( talk) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@ SQL: Please alert the Arbs to an active sockmaster in the topic area. [16] François Robere ( talk) 11:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
In short, I feel the committee took the easy route - a couple of I-bans and T-bans, some statements of principle, and "cheers everyone, let's go home." The only effective thing to come out of it is the sourcing restriction, and we didn't really need a full case for that. [25] Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding of the committee's role: we view it as a "high court" of sorts, while it views itself as a narrow "court of appeals". We expect re/solutions, while they just wants to "keep the flames down". Given how long this case took to resolve, one could've reasonably expected more thorough solutions. François Robere ( talk) 00:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ SashiRolls: What do you read from this? François Robere ( talk) 04:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Opabinia regalis: Re: your comment on FOF 3: to put it bluntly, the reason this didn't become a full case earlier is because the admins are apathetic, and no one trusts the Arbs. François Robere ( talk) 10:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Winged Blades of Godric: I just want to note the overall lack of interaction between the Arbs and the parties - no questions, no answers and no regulation (or nearly none); a case in absentia, I just haven't decided of whom. Unsurprisingly, the results are contested by virtually all sides; the case is a dud, and thank you all for participating! François Robere ( talk) 12:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately since the case has happened there has been continued escalation of borderline flaming attempts and repeated behavior described in the case like attempts to minimize Nazi atrocities towards Polish population while overemphasizing antisemitism in Poland
Icewhiz ignored question what POV does it represent to state that Poland was occupied by Nazis.
This sadly paints a picture where Nazi atrocities are being removed or denied as soon as they are concerning Poles and where Holocaust is being described as some German-Polish operation.The OR goes even further to the point where 13th century Poland has been described as racist state motivated by racial ideology rather than religious strife [43](note that NONE of the sources used by Icewhiz claim the conflict in 13th was motivated by racist ideology of thought rather than religion). -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Simply untrue, scholarly and expert sources have been added about Nazi atrocities in Poland against Polish population. In return FR has started denying that Nazis genocided Polish population and engaged in mass deletion of sources and infromation about Nazi racist policies in Poland such as War and Genocide: Essays in Honour of Jeremy Noakes Jeremy Noakes, Neil Gregory University of Exeter Press, 2005(that stated In 1942 Nazi racial discrimination was enshrined in Decree on Penal Law for Poles and Jews) and others [45]. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Reply to Icewhiz
Joanna B. Michlic Therefore I also reject the perspective that equates postwar anti-Polish stereotyping by Jews with the anti-Jewish idioms What I would indeed find toxic, is constant comparisons of Poland to Nazi Germany, inability to engage in dialogoue with numerous successive Polish editors, creating attack pages,deleting any information stating otherwise,and inability to interpret and frame intereactions and portayal of Poland in any other context besides racist antisemitism. As the English proverb states: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Couple of loose notes and observations.
I confess that I don't know at the current moment how to remedy this, all I can say is that I don't believe this will resolve the issue in the long term. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Re: Francois Robere's claims and MyMoloboaccount's comments (added after comment was moved):
The first one is not even about whether 13th century persecution of Jews was racial or religious. It's about the fact that what was a European-wide phenomenon is being ascribed to 13th century Poland as if it was unique. Icewhiz and FR are actually trying to blame Poland for the anti-semitic policies of the Lateran Council. In case anyone is confused, the Lateran is in Rome, the pope was an Italian, and the council was composed primarily of Frankish and Italian bishops from the Holy Roman Empire, and Poland didn't have diddly squat to do with it. Needless to say, the sources being used (and misrepresented) do not support the edits being pushed. It's just some weird obsession here, with cramming as much negative info into articles on Poland as possible, even if that info is false and not supported by sources. It's gotten REALLY tiresome. Like two years ago. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
And it is a complete falsehood that "editors rejected the consensus of a RM discussion". That is a dishonest and disingenuous way of describing the dispute. NOBODY tried to undo any article names or move. Instead, Icewhiz basically claimed that because the name "Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" was rejected in favor of simply "Holocaust in Poland" (which is reasonable per WP:MOS) that gave him a carte blanche to go through out Wikipedia and remove the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2 wherever he liked. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
And I'm sorry, but disagreements about how WP:MOS should be applied are NOT usually "actionable unless an ArbCom case is open". That's absurd. I've never seen that. This is hyperbolic attempt to deflect from the fact that Icewhiz got caught inserting false information into an article with fake sourcing [52] and I brought up the fact that THIS kind of behavior is ... usually very actionable. He's attempting to project. "I got caught doing something bad so I must quickly make up as many accusations as I can against the other party to change the topic!". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz's newest - a detailed explanation with multiple sources is NOT a "tirade". This is just more of the same from Icewhiz. Likewise Icewhiz's disingenous "it's unfortunate" (oh yeah, sure) "that VM disagrees..." NO. I simply provided multiple reliable sources which illustrate just how fringe Icewhiz's views are and how WP:TENDENTIOUS it is for him to try to smear anyone who disagrees with him as a "Polish nationalist". According to Icewhiz that label apparently applies to American and Israeli historians (and Polish ones) as well as the US Holocaust Museum and the Yad Vashem institute. Wait wait wait... let me try this... Ahem. *Clears throat*...
It is unfortunate that Icewhiz disagrees with the US Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem Institute, Timothy Snyder, Joshua Zimmerman and even Jan Grabowski,
See? Phony "civility" is easy. But that doesn't change that this is a case of WP:CPUSHing fringe views. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@ SQL: And also please alert the ArbCom that User:François Robere filed a completely bogus SPI report against me (it was under my username but after CU found, "unsurprisingly", nothing it was moved [53]). This is pretty good example of François Robere's WP:BATTLEGROUND. The decisions in this case need to address their behavior as well, especially in light of the evidence already presented.
(as an aside, I have no idea who or what these accounts are but freaking out because some single-edit-red-linked accounts made some edits and yelling about "WARNING! SOCKMASTER ACTIVE IN THE AREA!!!!" is a bit... over the top? But while we're here, I wouldn't mind if EVERYONE who's participating (whether as party or commentator) got their butts checkuser'd (in fact that should be standard policy for ArbCom cases)). Volunteer Marek 20:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: I'm not so sure that this is someone "impersonating me" - that's FR's conjecture, cooked up after it became obvious that I wasn't sock puppeting, to excuse his filing the report against me. I don't know... maybe? Also, I wasn't shouting, I was parodying the shouting of others, and I know that there's no chance whatsoever that my proposal for check usering everyone in an ArbCom case would ever be accepted.
@ François Robere: - the "bogus" part is that you filed it with bogus accusations against me. Volunteer Marek 03:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@ SQL: @ L235: It is my understanding that while the parties subject to the IBAN "may post responses to the PD directly on the PD talk page" they need to do so without pinging or responding directly to the other party. I presume that the IBAN also would cover attempts to introduce new material as "evidence" that has not been mentioned in either Evidence or Workshop previously, or that has not been subject of the PD. Basically, the statements should address the PDs, and not seek to initiate new disputes. Is that correct? Volunteer Marek 08:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ SQL: Remedy 3.3.6 should be a "Finding of Fact" rather than a "Proposed Remedy", since it doesn't actually propose anything, no? Volunteer Marek 06:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Overall I think these FoFs accurately reflect the evidence that has been submitted by parties (whether that evidence is convincing or not is a different question) which indicates that the Arbs have read it (if that sounds like I was worrying... I was, what with the delay and all). Here are my comments on the relevant FoFs (@ AGK: @ Opabinia regalis: @ KrakatoaKatie: @ GorillaWarfare:):
Purpose of Wikipedia - agree with all of it
Proposed Findings of Fact
Proposed remedies
One thing that I do think needs to be added is FoFs and Proposed Remedies concerning Francois Robere as he's been involved in these disputes almost as much as Icewhiz and almost ALWAYS (99.3% of the time) on Icewhiz's side [56] to the extent that it's hard to distinguish their edits (though their tone is different)
Volunteer Marek 22:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Worm That Turned: @ KrakatoaKatie: @ Opabinia regalis: @ AGK: @ GorillaWarfare:
This particular PD (Article sourcing expectations) #5 is just simply not well thought out. It says: "specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers". The problem is that these kinds of sources may be plentiful for... chemistry or biology topics or even something like American Civil War but they're actually pretty thin on the ground in THIS topic. And the restriction would eliminate a whole bunch of sources which are clearly reliable and almost essential. For example, Yad Vashem [57]. YV is a "research institute" which is run by the Israeli government "dedicated to the scientific study of the Holocaust and genocide in general". It is not "academic" although many academics do work there. It puts out brief articles which are NOT "peer reviewed", for example [58].
Yad Vashem is a reliable source. It is a very useful reliable source. We use it on articles in this topic area a lot. And I don't think there's anyone here who would question the reliability of Yad Vashem in general.
But under this restriction, we would not be allowed to use Yad Vashem as a source because it's publications are not "peer-reviewed" (they're not even working papers really, more like quasi-encyclopedic summaries). That would be *extremely* detrimental to the quality of articles in this topic area.
Another excellent source which would be prohibited by this restriction: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. For example, info here. These are also NOT "peer-reviewed" publications. And it's also something we use a lot.
I'm gonna be frank here - the ArbCom simply does not have the expertise or the knowledge to be able to decide what kind of sources are or are not appropriate in this topic. That would require at least amateurish familiarity with the literature in this area. Just so you know what the "industry standards" are. But I don't think anyone on the committee has that. This is precisely why generally the Committee is NOT suppose to decide on content matters. And this restriction is like someone who knows about, say, Classical music, deciding that rock bands are not allowed to play guitars because that's not part of the music they're familiar with.
The restriction would do much much more bad than good, especially considering that the overwhelming volume of disputes is not actually about the RELIABILITY of sources, but the alleged MISREPRESENTATION of what's in sources everyone agrees are reliable.
You need to either broaden this or drop it. Otherwise it'll be "Wikipedia Bans Yad Vashem and the US Holocaust Museum as a source!!!".
I suggest you guys refer this to the community and instruct someone to start a dedicated WP:RfC on the issue.
(Someone may be tempted to argue that in those cases, like YV and USHM, we can make an exception, but if you have to start making exceptions as soon as your blanket policy is written, then it's clearly a bad policy)
Volunteer Marek 18:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: - I guess I'm just not clear on how fabricating a quote and using anti-semitic sources shows that someone has "high standards for pretty much everything". Maybe our notion of what "high standards" are different?
Also, no, I don't "feel misunderstood". I "feel" attacked, insulted, smeared and lied about. Because when someone falsely and yes, viciously, accuses you of something like Holocaust denial or "advocating violence against Jews", and they do that just to win a stupid Wikipedia argument that is exactly the "feelings" a normal person should experience. But again, perhaps we have different "standards". Or maybe you simply don't get it because weren't the subject of such smears yourself. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: there is a qualitative and substantial difference between the accusation "you are a bad Wikipedia editor" and "you are guilty of Holocaust denial". For one thing, some countries have laws against the latter, but no countries have laws about the former. For a good reason too. Volunteer Marek 19:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@
Valereee: . The incivility and inflammatory rhetoric evidence is lopsided. The ABF is completely lopsided. The Hounding is 100% on one side.
I'm sorry, I don't know what diffs you're reading but your entire statement is false and contradicts the facts. Making false accusations of "Holocaust denial", just to gain an upper hand in a Wikipedia disagreement is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more uncivil and bad faithed and plain insulting, than any, well, natural human response to such odious accusations. It's also extremely disrespectful to the memory of Holocaust victims. And out of 157 articles that we edited together, I edited 115 of them first. There's just 10 where the situation was reversed. So yes, it's "lopsided" - just not the way you claim. Fabricating quotes and falsifying statements to smear a BLP subject... that's also "one sided". And guess what, that wasn't me. Using anti-semitic sources, while demanding that other editors use only "highest quality academic sources"? Yeah that's also "one sided". And that wasn't me either. Making ethnically charged comments? Nope not me either. Inserting information which is actually contradicted by a source but pretending otherwise and "fake-sourcing" it by including a false inline citation. That one wasn't me either.
ALL of these things are behaviors that usually result in an indefinite ban. A topic ban is a slap on a wrist by comparison. Volunteer Marek 21:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93: - can you show me where "experienced editors, even administrators" referred to a country that has a higher level of freedom of press than Israel and only slightly less than US (according to sources provided by Icewhiz) as "like North Korea or Iran"? That's just so far out there in terms of reasonable views that it certainly looks like inflammatory provocation. Can you show me where "experienced editors, even administrators" have asserted that in some democratic, highly developed country it is "illegal to edit Wikipedia on the topic"? Again, the absurdity of the claim speaks for itself. Do "experienced editors, even administrators" constantly evaluate the reliability of sources based on the ethnicity of the author? No? Then that too is inflammatory and derogatory. What you got here is not some "scrutinizing sources" but something quite different ... and kind of messed up. Volunteer Marek 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
In regards to VM's comments above:
"It is not known how many Jew had established residence in Poland in the thirteenth century. That there were enough of them (it wouldn't have taken many) in the old Polish diocese, that of Gnizeno (Gnesen), to worry the Church fathers is evident from the following clause in canonical law as imposed by the Church Council of Breslau in 1266.... VM and MyMoloboaccount are seriously arguing to exclude placing Polish Jews in separate ghettos - in Poland - from racism in Poland.
"simpler is not always better if it's less informative. RfC about naming of a particular article irrelevant"), diff, diff. This action (changing links, including see-also links, to correspond to title rejected by RM) by VM would've been actionable by itself had this ARBCOM not been open.
"German Nazi-occupied Poland"as caused by
"current trends in conservative Polish nationalism. In order to highlight what right wing Poles see as unrecognized Polish suffering (3 million non-Jewish Poles were murdered by the Nazis), it is important to minimize other suffering". Beorn also refers to this as a "naming crusade", and provides ample examples of Polish nationalist discourse in this context.
Icewhiz ( talk) 05:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Icewhiz's tactics is to try and label..."- I was quoting Dr. Waitman W. Beorn (Holocaust historian at The University of Virginia) who wrote on this topic. It is unfortunate VM disagrees with Dr. Beorn. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@ AGK: - the hounding, harrassment, bullying, and name calling has been entirely one sided here. The sole place I have made comments on Volunteer Marek have been pages related to this case page - and these have been politely framed. I want to point out to ARBCOM that VM's issues extend well past Polish Jews (whom VM stated, here in ARBCOM, should not be labelled by Wikipedia as Polish in Wikipedia's lead) - but also to Islamophobia in Poland and LGBT-free zone where his disruption and arguing against mainstream high quality sources is clearly WP:NOTTHERE (beyond "just" hounding and bullying). That ARBCOM sees fit to consider sanctioning the victim of a relentless hounding campaign (which continued during these proceedidngs) speaks volumes. That diff from 15 August - which included the dergatory and racial based "anti-Polish":
For the advocates of the national-Catholic outlook the concept of anti-Polonism is much clearer than that of antisemitism. It has been present in the Polish public discourse since the late 1960s. It has even earned a definition: “external or internal actions aimed at the destruction of the Polish state and nation, hostility towards Poland and Poles, use of lies and insinuations calculated to blacken the image of the nation”. In the popular usage the anti-Polonism is limited almost exclusively to the alleged ‘anti-Polish machinations’ on the part of Jews.
[60] To further frame the context - "anti-Polish" was the label applied to Polish Jews in 1968 as the Polish government expelled almost every remaining Jew in Poland (some 100,000):
"Zionists to Zion," people yelled at party conventions, the aim being to send the country's Jews — regarded as anti-Polish — to Israel.
[61] That this threatening language that does not result in an immediate site ban speaks volumes to the health of this community in responding to highly toxic behavior. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Premeditated Chaos: - a response to the points below would be appreciated. Thank you. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz ( talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"the most controversial episode of his academic career". I should've placed one of these sources next to my assertion - however this is easily sourced.
"response in Whatever newspaper"[74]) - stating "outlandish" as fact. The Routledge book, beyond citing Kurek's book, also cited Gazeta Wyborcza for further reading, [75] but it would've been incorrect to attribute the wording in the academic source to the newspaper as the source didn't do so - it should've been attributed to the Weinbaum in Routledge (The 2006 Gazeta Wyborcza piece (which is not a response nor oped- it is a full feature published by Wyborcza with their own reporters (+credited outside professional historical help)) is also quite critical - but it uses other language).
Icewhiz ( talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Added. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
My opening preamble to ARBCOM, in the context of arbitration, was on the state of content on Wikipedia, in relation to currents outside of Wikipedia on Holocaust distortion/denial. I followed up by specific examples present in Wikipedia mainspace for years. Volunteer Marek appeared some four paragraphs down. I stand behind my assertion that Holocaust distortion content is present - and is even pervasive on Wikipedia.
In addition to distortions listed in the case (6 separate examples in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Icewhiz) - during this long case I found a conspiracy theory on an extra death camp (allegedly for ethnic Poles, death toll of 200,000 and even 400,000 per one version) present in main space for some 15 years - in 6 different articles - including top-tier articles such as Extermination Camp or German camps in occupied Poland during World War II). See User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory. I also sent to the ARBCOM mailing list (and I was not looking for this - I was working on removing/refactoring this content to RSes) - Poeticbent inserting information on KL Warschau not supported by the citation he used (in response to a citation-needed challenge), nor by any mainstream source in - diff).
Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation should be deeply concerned at this platform hosting widespread Holocaust distortion. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The evidence in
[76] - is wide ranging - and beyond an error. In
Stawiski Poeticbent actively prevented removal more than three times of content not supported by citations - I refer to
AE on this content and to
this piece by Dr. Whitcup who describes multiple attempts to correct the entry (the editor doing the reverting, as evident in article history, was Poeticbent).
Icewhiz ( talk) 06:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Struck - as not the place to rerun evidence. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Posted in accordance with note. The proposed decision draft (as of 8 September 2019), has overlooked the following points - all present in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"Kurek's views are outlandish and abhorrent- I would request your response to editors advancing self-published works (in which said views are expressed as facts) by Ewa Kurek as a source for Jewish/Holocaust history on Wikipedia - this is present in evidence - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Pitorus dubious sourcing ( diff). As well as an editor contrasting mainstream sources (and, I'd note, secondary academic sources with similar coverage and mainstream Polish media (e.g. Gazeta Wyborcza). The book itself being a dissertation rejected by a Polish university - so not only self-published, but self-published after rejection + poorly received) with far-right Polish media labeling mainstream North American scholars with the ethnically derogatory "anti-Polish" [77] [78] [79] - 22 May 2019 diff (also in evidence). The promotion of Ewa Kurek as a source on Wikipedia has been going on for over a year - e.g. RSN discussion in May 2018. Given Piotrus's involvement in a number of discussions of Kurek as well as editing the Ewa Kurek article itself - Piotrus should've been abundantly aware of RS coverage on the nature of the self-published source he introduced. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek POV/FRINGE, the following points on BLP vs. Volunteer Marek are in evidence and not in the PD:
"rant is stuffed so full of nonsense and is barely coherent, so it's pretty much a non-RS"), [81] (
"so she wrote basically a long rant about it, stuffed full of inaccuracies, falsehoods, hyperbolic and exaggerated language, failed attempts at irony and faux outrage. And that's the parts that are coherent"). Contrast WP:RSes - such as the Holocaust Studies journal [82] or English-language news media - NE Public Radio or Tablet.
"absurd"and
"utilizes ridiculous and laughable conspiracy theories". (the information itself on the The Institute of World Politics is corroborated by several other 3rd party sources (e.g. Newsweek or coverage on postgraduate intelligence studies) - as well as IWP itself (all over their website. Their main page - [85] - currently features a CIA information session on 10 September, Employers of IWP Alumni - lists CIA and DIA at the top).
"vivid and exaggerated statements to create propagandistic constructions, rather than to provide an honest picture"- language not present in secondary coverage, serious accusation, and the subject of a libel lawsuit - source.
Icewhiz ( talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek POV/FRINGE the following are in evidence and not in the PD:
"Polish"from Polish Jews. In ARBCOM - [92] - openly advocating:
"The difference between me and Icewhiz here is that while he objects to stating that a person was Jewish, he is insisting that we include that a person was Polish in the lede (this in the case of people who were both Polish and Jewish). I am saying, leave both out.". Counter to MOS:ETHNICITY.
"Pole bashing"- [97] or
"COATRACK ... disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV"- [98].
Icewhiz ( talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: Verification and Volunteer Marek's actions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes are in evidence and not in the PD:
"both Poles and Jews were classified as subhuman and targeted for extermination"- far from mainstream historiography. Cited source - a municipal website - does not contain this falsehood. Note content was challenged - diff - on WP:V failure of this segment.
"Polish families to exile"- as a prelude to their mass murder in a pogrom carried out by Poles. The source, as indicated by VM himself ( [103]), is on a different place entirely. English source: right here on page 63 (statement is without a location, and describes why
"nationalistic elements among the majority peoples"(throughout Western USSR) labelled the Soviet administration as a
"Jewish regime"). Note coverage on the event isn't lacking (e.g. Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 (published by Indiana University Press & USHMM) has a 2 page entry on the event - nothing similar on "Jewish militiamen").
"very limited"(It actually notes the opposite. In Polish - but is cited/summarized in English ( here). The sentence is also absurd by itself - an item held by 19% of Poles (per survey) is not
"very limited")
Icewhiz ( talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: - Maybe presenting evidence against an editor gone for a year was a waste of time (proceedings so far seem to strongly indicate this). But content is what I care about. As someone who understands this topic, I was shocked to uncover (in a gradual and haphazard fashion - Stawiski I fixed on march 2018, [108] and Belzec in June 2019, [109] - all the rest are spread out in between) the 6 examples in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent: anti-Jewish hoaxes (and there are several less egregious examples) - I thought - evidently wrongly - these would be obvious on the face of things - present in Wikipedia mainspace for years (and some (e.g. Stawiski - actively defended vs. challenges by novices/IPs). I was even more shocked by the later (August) chance find of User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is used in schools - it's the go-to resource when school kids write a school report (well - B/C/D/F grade students who copy/paraphrase the Wikipedia article). These shouldn't have been present on Wikipedia. I thought ARBCOM would look at content - and specifically content that fails verification ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek: Verification) or uses very poor sources for a sensitive topic ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Pitorus dubious sourcing). Content is what Wikipedia is about end of the day. Name calling or losing tempers - that's all on the backstage of talk pages and edit summaries (and if it is just name calling - without hampering productive work - I often just ignore it). It seems this case is basically being reduced to "two editors had a fight, lets separate/punish them" - that won't improve content quality.
(I will note that at least Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision#Article sourcing expectations would be a step forward - most historical subjects (as opposed to present-day debates over historical subjects) - that pass WP:GNG have copious sources in English academic sources). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Premeditated Chaos:, @ KrakatoaKatie:, @ Worm That Turned:, @ Opabinia regalis: - this modification is ill advised since educational material on the websites of reputable institutions (e.g. USHMM) are often of a very low quality (often changing - without a stable publication date/form, and wouldn't be used as a citation in a serious context), and furthermore determining what is a reputable institution is complex - and possible much too complex for WP:AE. Many Eastern European institutions have an appalling reputation in this regard - perhaps the best known example is the Lithuanian Genocide Centre (which is relevant to Poland - as they share a border, and modern Lithuania contains part of pre-WWII Poland ( Wilno/ Vilnius)) - which is known for promoting the double genocide myth and has a reputation of glorifying/whitewashing the Lithuanian Nazi collaborators (who tend also be anti-Soviet fighters) - who - in Lithuania (unlike Poland) - actually carried out the bulk of the Lithuanian Holocaust. (See this for easy reading on the subject. Memory Politics in Lithuania have been the subject of academic study). The same is true of some state run museums - some of which have a similar record and poor reputation. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
More of a procedural thing than anything, AGK, but I think Worm That Turned mentioned on the Fram case that he was opposed to time limited bans. He was speaking of site bans there, but I think the same logic applies to topic bans. Given how deeply seated these topics are emotionally for people, I personally doubt in a year they will suddenly not feel the same way and act the same way. It might make more sense to change it to "They may appeal after a year" or something like that, so that there has to be a discussion before the ban lapses.
Anyway, that assumes either passes, but worth raising as there has been a trend both at AN, AE, and to some extent ArbCom itself away from limited sanctions. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: You're right that I'm basically arguing semantics with denial v. distortion. "Polocaust", though, really isn't an inflammatory term IMO; it's the term used by the Polish government itself, and seems to be used by others to describe the concept:
In that diff, IW is arguing that an author was not reliable because he's "advancing polocaust, which is quite fringy". I don't see how that's inflammatory when "Polocaust" is what it's called by the government, professors, the media, etc., and the author in question did write a book called "Poland's Holocaust" [114]. Whether Polocaust is or isn't "fringy", and whether this author is or isn't an RS, I don't know, but I don't think it's inflammatory to use the term Polocaust or suggest that it may be fringe (there's at least some support out there for that, but I haven't extensively researched the issue myself). – Leviv ich 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ MJL: I'll note IW wrote above that he shouldn't have added Ewa Kurek to that category and didn't contest it, but there's at least enough Israeli media sources IMO to call it a good-faith content issue and not a BLP violation:
Haaretz calls her a "revisionist" and we don't have a Category:Holocaust revisionists, and I'm probably more of a hardliner that "revisionism is denial' perhaps than IW, so I can see why he wouldn't contest it, but not a bad-faith BLP violation. Revisionism v. denial is "shades of gray". – Leviv ich 03:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi PMC, could you expand on the two diffs you added to FOF 10 and what specifically about them is inappropriate editorializing in Wikivoice? The second diff [118] appears to have nothing in wikivoice at all, everything is attributed and cited to Michlic. In the first diff [119], the first sentence is the only sentence in wikivoice (right?), and I assume it's the word "outlandish" that is inappropriate editorializing. This word is used in the source cited [120] (a book published by Routledge, p. 38, "...Ewa Kurek, who advanced an outlandish interpretation..."). Is it the failure to attribute that makes this sanctionable editorializing in wikivoice? Also, generally speaking, the theory that Jews built the ghettos themselves in collaboration with the Nazis, "had fun" there, and that it was their first experience with self-governance in 2,000 years... we can't say that's "outlandish" in Wikivoice? Given the sourcing that was already in the article at the time this edit was made ( AP via Boston Globe "Ewa Kurek, has made claims that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II", Yad Vashem historian quoted [121] "Kurek is using the Holocaust and using Jewish history and Polish history in order to spread hate"; in the same link Simon Wiesenthal Center Director of Govt Affairs described her as a "professional anti-Semite" and "Holocaust distorter". Comparing our treatment of this fringe view, with our treatment of anti-vaxers or flat-earthers, etc., would you call it a BLP violation if an editor wrote that a flat-earther's claim that the earth was flat was "outlandish", in wikivoice?
Similarly, could the arbs expand on which of the sources in the first FOF 10 diff [122] are inappropriate sources? Editors will want to avoid them in the future. Thank you. – Leviv ich 01:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Original:
During World War II Poland was the main scene of the Holocaust ...
During World War II Poland was the main scene of the genocide of Poles by Nazis as well as Holocaust ...
Arbcom has two cases: one is simple and direct, involving a single editor and a resolution that nearly everyone agrees upon (overturn the office action); the other is complicated and nuanced, involving multiple editors and the Holocaust, with no easy solution.
Number of edits by all arbitrators combined to the Fram proposed decision page after the PD was posted: 190
Number of edits by all arbitrators combined to the Poland proposed decision page after the PD was posted: 3 ( [123] [124] [125]). – Leviv ich 19:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding ... and/or articles published by reputable institutions.
:
I think a source restriction for the topic area is a generally good idea, but not a half-baked, half-assed one that isn't based on a thorough examination of the sources actually being used in the topic area.
I'm starting to think maybe it's better if Arbcom just "no-billed" this. Make no decision at all, and kick it back to the community. And take the PIA4 case off the docket, too. If the arbitrators aren't "into" this – that is, if it doesn't have their attention and engagement – there is no point in their rendering a decision. It will only make things worse than they were before. It doesn't help to create a source restriction that you know will bite you in the ass later, just because it might work. We don't need arbcom to throw spaghetti against the wall and see if it sticks. As I said at the very outset of this case, all that's needed is for a group of editors who are interested in doing so to carefully work through these issues. Unfortunately that isn't what's happened here. – Leviv ich 15:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I have watched this case from afar and my feeling about it has changed significantly over time, particularly after looking more carefully into a couple of the articles under contention and successfully editing a couple of those pages. Two of the proposed findings of fact are problematic. As both Icewhiz and Levivich have said, I think it is stretching language-policing to the limit to characterize the words "Polocaust" and "polophile" as insulting, proscribed speech. Finding of Fact #4 should be split into two separate findings as Levivich suggests. Similarly, the citations Lev provides of VM showing no self-restraint should definitely be added to the FoF regarding VM's "inflammatory rhetoric". My initial sympathy for VM in this case was related to off-wiki events with which I have no reason to believe IW was connected (Streisand Effect of VM vociferating about being called a holocaust denier.)
I also concur with Levivich concerning the presentation of events since closure of the evidence phase (FoF #14). Not only was the edit warring report glossed over (though El C specifically drew ArbCom's attention to it, leading to the temporary injunctions on this very page!) , but the link to Icewhiz' naked block record (without mention of their AE appeal) is very misleading. bradv chose to block IW for a marginal offense, while looking the other way as VM pushed "Ethnic Poles" back to the top of the "Racism in Poland" entry (which he'd fought with IW about as recently as 11 Aug).
I can understand that IW has provoked reaction with their editing. My experience, for example, with the New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) page is a good example. The point about Polish nationalism is/was driven home with multiple repetitions and unnecessarily unpleasant / leading formulations. However, I think it is worth mentioning that I did not encounter any of the ownership behavior so common in AP2 when I tried to tone down the language. (In fact, I don't believe that I was reverted on either of the pages I edited which IW had principally authored.)
In summary, I don't want to get involved in this debate any more than to say that FoF #4 and FoF #14 should be modified: the first should be split into two separate findings and the latter should be completed to include a fuller picture of the post-workshop goings on. It is my opinion that there is some fault on both sides but that something needs to be done about an editor who regularly vents their spleen without any filter whatsoever. Again, I believe VM's comments need to be highlighted here so that it is clear what ArbCom will be condoning if they do not sanction this sort of speech:
Volunteer Marek being splenetic: A]...to push his fucked up POV of "Poles are a bunch of anti semites" which has been the POV he's been engaged in pushing for the past two years... Icewhiz's POV however goes far beyond that and displays some weird obsession with shitting on Poland B]... 1) Fuck. You. and 2) have the fucking guts to say it outright rather than insinuating it like a sleazy weasel...horribly and utterly sleazy, dishonest and scummy... this fucking asshole needs to be banned. Now. C]...stop lying about me you fucking sleazeball.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I really believe the triply templated Racism in Poland (Coatrack, POV, undue) could stand some attention, particularly the ref-stack of 14 quotes in the lede, which take up a full screen/page's worth of footnotes in the references section.
The talk page, too, is filled with love. When the question was raised of changing the name of the article to "Prejudice in Poland" or "Religious intolerance in Poland", one of my co-commenters here had this to say:
I think you are really obsessed. How about Nazi zombies in Poland?My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's been over six weeks now, and if the ref-stack (added in the days after mvbw's suggestion) is the productive result of that comment, I'm not impressed. One reference to, say, the Khmelnytsky_Uprising, or to the Szlachta might deserve at least a tiny place in this bloated list concerning racism in Poland... unfortunately the source I've been reading to learn more is not in English, though it is peer-reviewed. ( 978-2-87673-555-2)
Meanwhile, I don't know if there are any GLAM projects planned with Gdansk's WWII musuem, but... [126], [127] 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said before, i-bans and t-bans are not ideal, but frankly, I am not sure what would be better :( Few general comments:
Just want to say that I fully endorse points 1-7 made by User:Levivich regarding issues with the source quality remedy. This needs much refinement. Ideally, interested editors would create something like WP:VG/RS or others in the Category:WikiProject lists of online reliable sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Largely agree with almost everything that Levivich said .... ∯WBG converse 11:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
If any arb wishes to reply, please reply to individual bullets.
inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments? [FoF 4 :- Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric, IW's bullet]
inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments? [FoF 4 :- Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric, IW's bullet]
inappropriate speculation? [FoF 10 :- BLP violations
From what appears in the (voting) records, the basis of the decision against Davies was ..... the manner and substance of his academic interpretation of historical events occurring some 40 years earlier.Also, see this chapter.
Icewhiz has made negative edits to BLPsis grossly poor phrasing. [FoF 10 :- BLP violations
Kurek's views are outlandish and abhorrent, but we must present that in an encyclopedic way to avoid BLP and NPOV issues....If the paragraph had been worded:- "So-and-so described this position as 'outlandish' in a response in Whatever newspaper"....[FoF 10 :- BLP violations
The Committee does not rule on content(from ARBPOL) for good reasons and the mess that you have constructed while choosing to adjudicate on a content-dispute, tells volumes about why some of you might try to edit one or two articles per year, now onward. At any case, you have already drafted a safety valve at FOF-12 (Challenges in evaluating evidence); expand its ambit and nuke your motions on content. I have zero confidence that you can tackle a content dispute. FWIW, the decisions on conduct-aspects seems to be okay-ish to me. ∯WBG converse 18:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section link from FOF#14 (events after workshop closure) to Remedy 6 (delay acknowledgement)? ToThAc ( talk) 16:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Joe Roe, Worm That Turned, and KrakatoaKatie: You seem to be moving rapidly towards closure here, but there's some fairly substantive comments on the talk page that you haven't yet responded to; may I ask you to do so? I am referring in particular to comments about the Icewhiz portion of FoF 3.2.4, some of which mirror my own concerns. To be clear, I am not going to defend Icewhiz's general behavior in this area. However, working in a contentious area requires scrutinizing sources very closely; particularly when government-influenced historical revisionism needs to be accounted for. The language used in those diffs closely resembles that used by experienced editors, even administrators, in dealing with fringe material in other contentious areas. I think you need to clarify what exactly you find concerning in those diffs, or you are unintentionally going to have a chilling effect on editors attempting to clean up the very topics on Wikipedia that need the most attention. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I echo some of the concerns laid out by others, and note that ARBCOM is not reading or at least not responding to them. My concern is that after all is said and done, as evident that Warsaw_concentration_camp didn't have anything about it being a conspiracy theory until Icewhiz cleaned it up, we're now going to go backwards and becoming the clearinghouse for further Holocaust revisionism. That you're "dinging" Icewhiz for his comment on Kurek is shocking. Further, I just want to note that the only reason why Icewhiz was blocked for a IBAN violation was because Bradv blocked him for violated a supposed Iban for edits that were 1 year separated. In addition, when I asked him why he wasn't going to block VM for an even closer IBAN violation, he shrugged it off with an excuse. So VM remains, as before unblockable. Also, while User:Xx236 was not part of the case, I do think his contributions should be looked into. He has made several contributions that fall well past NPA and CIVIL and just because he hasn't made a splash is no excuse. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned that this is a combined case. In most of the FoF, there's a major difference between the two parties. The incivility and inflammatory rhetoric evidence is lopsided. The ABF is completely lopsided. The Hounding is 100% on one side. It seems like most of the FoF are like this. It makes the case taken as a whole seem much worse than it is in reality -- for either party, really -- and I think it's possible this could cause some unconscious sense of "fairness" kicking in when voting on the proposals that actually would be unfair. -- valereee ( talk) 14:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I have not been involved in this case and do not usually edit in this area (thank God!). However, I have had some interaction with editors involved in it. I do not feel that the solutions proposed by ArbCom will alleviate the problem, besides the sourcing restrictions, which I heartily support. The topic of the Holocaust and WWII in Poland appears to have a highly toxic editing environment, so much so that many editors and even administrators simply stay away. While Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz may be the biggest partisans in the fight, many other editors are also involved and their contributions do not appear to have been scrutinized at all. I also share concerns about several of the findings against Icewhiz that have already been expressed by other editors such as Levivich and Godric above. I realize that ArbCom is very busy with FRAMBAN, but this solution is no solution at all and will simply end up taking up more of the communities time in the future.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
A number of anti-EE comments show bias of some of the participants. This Wikipedia follows post-colonial Western POV. Icewhiz uses the narration to accuse the Poles and you are unable to understand your bias, because you belong to the Western culture. Similar narration describing non-EE nations would have been banned as racist, x-phobic. The anti-EE sanctions are obvious legal discriminations. Xx236 ( talk) 08:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Given that your proposed decision's locust of dispute explicitly states "This complex dispute centers on reliable sourcing, non-neutral point of view, and battleground behavior over a range of articles related to antisemitism and Jewish history in Poland, specifically in relation to World War II and The Holocaust, and including a number of BLPs of scholars studying these topics, I'm curious to know why the arbitration committee wouldn't elect to simply consider this case under the header of the older German war effort case located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort, merging the two to create a single, unified, user friendly (as it were) case concerning the overall German War Effort - which already included the Holocaust, a World War II based event carried out by elements of German's military at the time - and move to address both the Germany revisionist history of World War II (which K.e.coffman already pointed out is a known problem on Wikipedia) and the ongoing issues surrounding World War II's role in antisemitism, which have been specifically singled out here in this case. The committee, closing the German war effort case, noted in its remedies that:
"While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
It would seem (to me anyway) that merging the two cases into a single, unified Germany in World War II case would allow the committee to better tackle both of the given issues and those that have apparently repeatedly arisen from them time and time again on the English Wikipedia. Just a thought. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Please clarify. The case text at the voting tally states "The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close." The close vote is 5:0 and has been for 4 days, yet the case is not closed yet...? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)