Flibbertigibbets (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
→Holocaust in Poland: on adding Chapmansh as a party |
||
Line 395: | Line 395: | ||
**Piotr the idea of supporting victims by declaring them innocent is interesting. My one concern on first thought is that no one deserves the kind of harassment certain LTAs dish out including victims who may have violated policies and guidelines themselves. But it really is an interesting idea and so I want to keep thinking about it. Thanks for the thought. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 02:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
**Piotr the idea of supporting victims by declaring them innocent is interesting. My one concern on first thought is that no one deserves the kind of harassment certain LTAs dish out including victims who may have violated policies and guidelines themselves. But it really is an interesting idea and so I want to keep thinking about it. Thanks for the thought. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 02:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
**{{re|Chess}} I anticipate the committee discussing, if this case is accepted, the parties including potentially adding Chapmansh. If you have concerns about current classes I'd encourage you to use the [[WP:EDUN|Education Noticeboard]] as that is likely to get the appropriate eyes on it and perhaps have faster/better resolution than what ArbCom can offer. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
**{{re|Chess}} I anticipate the committee discussing, if this case is accepted, the parties including potentially adding Chapmansh. If you have concerns about current classes I'd encourage you to use the [[WP:EDUN|Education Noticeboard]] as that is likely to get the appropriate eyes on it and perhaps have faster/better resolution than what ArbCom can offer. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
**{{re|Buffs}} editors banned by the Wikimedia Foundation are excluded from any and all particiaption in anything around Wikipedia. It is not unseemly to speak ill of someone whose harassment has been proven to the satiisfaction of English Wikipedia, the global community, ''and'' the Wikimedia Foundation. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
**{{re|Buffs}} editors banned by the Wikimedia Foundation are excluded from any and all particiaption in anything around Wikipedia. It is not unseemly to speak ill of someone whose harassment has been proven to the satiisfaction of English Wikipedia, the global community, ''and'' the Wikimedia Foundation. It is instead a statement of fact in the same way that we note people who've been convicted of terrible crimes in our articles about them. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
**For people who are saying that we need to add Chapmansh as a party, what Wikipedia Policies and/or Guidelines have they potentially violated and what is the evidence (diff) to support that? From what I'm reading here the issues are: improper association with Icewhiz, doxxing, and poor scholarship. But none of those have happened on wiki and all of them are beyond the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Jurisdiction|jurisidiction]] of the committee. If the idea is simply that they be allowed to be heard on these matters, all English Wikipedia editors are given the opportunity to be heard. If Chapmansh would like the benefits of being a party (which formally include more words and diffs and informally a bit more tolerance of borderline behavior during a case) and were to request that then sure we should add them. But in general outside of requests to be a party, I believe in only adding a party where there is some expectation that evidence of misconduct can be shown, which is why the committee has sometimes chosen not to have the filer of a case as parties in the last couple of years and why I am skeptical that Chapmansh should be added here. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Accept''' Per [[Special:Diff/1063767363/next|my opposition to the previous motion to decline]] and echoing Barkeep's statement above, our inaction has led to now a second instance of public censure and the continued potential for off-wiki harassment of our community members. Unacceptable then, and unacceptable now.{{pb}}I believe a significant portion of blame rests on the shoulders of the Arbitration Committee for failing to adequately attend to the needs of the community across the multiple times our attention was requested, and it is this [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plain_error plain error] which justifies our unusual resumption of proceeding [[sua sponte|on our own motion]]. Icewhiz has been a scourge these last five years, and our inability to adequately handle his disruption has led to the breakdown of our editorial community, general decorum, and article quality. These effects are diffuse, leading to fatigue of our volunteers, and a battleground where only those willing to put up with the potential for harassment---from many "sides"---can edit. This is not how a high-quality encyclopedia is written. We were asked in 2019 to review conduct in this area, but the Committee was small and attention diverted. The number of arbitrators participating in the 2019 case (6!) would not even constitute a majority of this body. In fact, more arbitrators were in the minority to accept the 2021 request than participated in the 2019 case. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Acknowledgment_of_delay|We did not give our full attention in 2019]], and when that error led to continued problems, we were asked in 2021 to revisit the issue. We narrowly declined, asking the community to use our existing procedures contrary to the statements of our community members who explained why these procedures have failed them so far. Our failure to respond has led to editors feeling more comfortable speaking about these issues to external academic than to the Committee tasked with resolving them, and as a result, we ''once again'' have a public article impugning our encyclopedia, administrative procedures, and editors. We cannot sit by, once again, and hope that the editors we sent away last time take time away from their other tasks while they check a procedural box for us. The community already gave us the right to revisit previous proceedings; let's not waste more of their time with the procedural game of having them ask us to remedy our own contribution to the problem.{{pb}} This will not be an easy issue to resolve, but the Committee was not convened to solve easy issues. We have the opportunity to give this topic the diligence and care necessary to properly resolve it. We have the attention of academics and scholars who believe our content is important. We have editors on-record laying out where our procedures have failed and with ideas on how to improve them. We have a large and active committee with few parallel obligations and the capacity to share the workload. We can leverage these resources now or wait for this decade-long problem to get still worse. The committee waited last time, and I hope we do not make the same mistake again. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Accept''' Per [[Special:Diff/1063767363/next|my opposition to the previous motion to decline]] and echoing Barkeep's statement above, our inaction has led to now a second instance of public censure and the continued potential for off-wiki harassment of our community members. Unacceptable then, and unacceptable now.{{pb}}I believe a significant portion of blame rests on the shoulders of the Arbitration Committee for failing to adequately attend to the needs of the community across the multiple times our attention was requested, and it is this [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plain_error plain error] which justifies our unusual resumption of proceeding [[sua sponte|on our own motion]]. Icewhiz has been a scourge these last five years, and our inability to adequately handle his disruption has led to the breakdown of our editorial community, general decorum, and article quality. These effects are diffuse, leading to fatigue of our volunteers, and a battleground where only those willing to put up with the potential for harassment---from many "sides"---can edit. This is not how a high-quality encyclopedia is written. We were asked in 2019 to review conduct in this area, but the Committee was small and attention diverted. The number of arbitrators participating in the 2019 case (6!) would not even constitute a majority of this body. In fact, more arbitrators were in the minority to accept the 2021 request than participated in the 2019 case. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Acknowledgment_of_delay|We did not give our full attention in 2019]], and when that error led to continued problems, we were asked in 2021 to revisit the issue. We narrowly declined, asking the community to use our existing procedures contrary to the statements of our community members who explained why these procedures have failed them so far. Our failure to respond has led to editors feeling more comfortable speaking about these issues to external academic than to the Committee tasked with resolving them, and as a result, we ''once again'' have a public article impugning our encyclopedia, administrative procedures, and editors. We cannot sit by, once again, and hope that the editors we sent away last time take time away from their other tasks while they check a procedural box for us. The community already gave us the right to revisit previous proceedings; let's not waste more of their time with the procedural game of having them ask us to remedy our own contribution to the problem.{{pb}} This will not be an easy issue to resolve, but the Committee was not convened to solve easy issues. We have the opportunity to give this topic the diligence and care necessary to properly resolve it. We have the attention of academics and scholars who believe our content is important. We have editors on-record laying out where our procedures have failed and with ideas on how to improve them. We have a large and active committee with few parallel obligations and the capacity to share the workload. We can leverage these resources now or wait for this decade-long problem to get still worse. The committee waited last time, and I hope we do not make the same mistake again. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
::{{re|Floquenbeam}} Speaking for myself regarding your questions: |
::{{re|Floquenbeam}} Speaking for myself regarding your questions: |
Revision as of 20:47, 14 February 2023
Requests for arbitration
Holocaust in Poland
Initiated by the Arbitration Committee, invoking its jurisdiction over all matters previously heard and exercising its authority to revisit any proceeding at any time at its sole discretion.
Potential parties
All parties listed were named in "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" (link). Editors named in the article but not included are those who are indefinitely blocked/banned, who are deceased, or who are or were sitting Arbs. Parties may be added or removed at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee if a case is opened. Inclusion in this list, or as a party if a case opens, does not mean that misconduct has or will be found.
- Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ealdgyth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Ermenrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jacinda01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lembit Staan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mick gold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nihil novi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Voceditenore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Xx236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- GoldenRing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Buidhe
- Ealdgyth
- Ermenrich
- François Robere
- GizzyCatBella
- Jacinda01
- K.e.coffman
- Lembit Staan
- Levivich
- Mhorg
- Mick gold
- My very best wishes
- Nihil novi
- Paul Siebert
- Piotrus
- Poeticbent
- Szmenderowiecki
- Voceditenore
- Volunteer Marek
- Xx236
- Drmies
- El C
- GoldenRing
- Sandstein
- TonyBallioni
- Ymblanter
- Proceedings being revisited, in part or in whole
- Piotrus
- Eastern Europe
- Eastern European disputes
- Eastern European mailing list
- Russavia-Biophys
- Antisemitism in Poland
- Warsaw concentration camp case request
Statement by Buidhe
Statement by Ealdgyth
You know... a bit more guidance on exactly WHAT this means would be nice. What are you LOOKING at and what do you want to see. (And I'm going to proactively request a LOT more words, because frankly, after the last few times I submitted evidence and had it not understood because it was within the word/diff limits, I'm tired of being asked for evidence that is hamstrung by evidence limits.) Ealdgyth (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Old links to previous thoughts:
- My thoughts on an Amendment request for Eastern Europe from April 2019
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Statement by Ealdgyth from June 2019
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive280#Statement by Ealdgyth from Jan 2021
- User:Ealdgyth/Holocaust in occupied Poland arb com evidence#Summary from Jan 2022
- Warsaw Concentration Camp from Dec 2022
This is not an exhaustive list at all. I'm pretty sure I weighed in on the lifting of the topic bans for VM and GCB, and I know I've weighed in on many other Arb Enforcement threads that I can't find easily (incidentally, I'd love to see links to the discussions that lifted those topic bans). Nothing is resolved or fixed yet. There is still a disinclination to actually look past the surface and get into the meat of the issue - which is distortion of the articles through various means. Instead, it's still a battleground (the comments here at this page show several examples of it) that has too many people interested in scoring points against the "other side" (and that holds true for both "sides") rather than actually fixing the articles. As for the existing procedures - they aren't working. The sourcing restriction is a joke - when one of the arb enforcement threads resulted in a warning for Buidhe for removing sources that did not fit the sourcing reqs, it's clear that the sourcing requirement isn't working (see the Jan 2021 comment listed above). In that example, the Mark Paul source that's been discussed to death in the past as an unreliable source was restored over Buidhe's objections and Buidhe was told by the admins at that enforcement that basically, no matter the requirement for using only high-quality sources AND the fact that previous discussions had come to the conclusion that Mark Paul did not meet the enhanced sourcing requirements in the topic area, the onus was on her to prove AGAIN on the talk page that the Paul source (and others) did not meet the requirements. I think we can see that the sourcing requirement isn't working. On whether I think arbitration now would solve the issues? Given the track record of past arbcoms, forgive me for not having a lot of hope that anything will change. But sure, let me try again. Please read my above past statements. They still ALL apply. It's still a battleground where too much time is spent chasing Icewhiz and not enough time fixing articles. And why should I try to fix them when it's likely that I'm just going to have to fight tooth-and-nail to exclude obviously unreliable sources like Mark Paul? (Please note that I'm as opposed to including anything that pushes a "all Poles were collaborators with the Nazis" POV also.) The subject of the German actions in Poland in the Holocaust (and by extension, the whole of Eastern Europe) is one where nothing is easy and it's too easy to fall prey to POV-pushing. What's needed is calm discussion without battleground behavior and the willingness to compromise. That's not happening, and the only reason it's not nastier right now is that much of the attention is now focused on Russian-Ukrainian issues due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This is a bit over 500 words, but I'm going to beg folks' indulgence on it.
Statement by Ermenrich
I'm not entirely sure what to post here and honestly, given how unpleasant this topic area is, I'm not sure I want to say anything. I have been mercifully uninvolved in this topic area for quite some time, and was mostly involved through the fact that some of the same editors also edit articles related to other aspects of Polish history. I was quite amazed to see that I've been cited in the Grabowski/Klein article. Let me simply say that I'm fairly certain that there is some truth to what Grabowski/Klein write about the topic area (which is certainly peer-reviewed, Floquenbeam, see [1]).--Ermenrich (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by François Robere
Statement by GizzyCatBella
Note:
- Jacinda01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (listed as party here) (with a total of 16 edits) is a (possible, but I'm sure it is) sock-puppet of Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See edit by a block sock puppet named Bob not snob -->[2] See the same edit of Jacinda01 restoring blocked sock puppets entry 24 hours later.
Do you still want to hear from them? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Jacinda01 is mentioned by G.&K as follows:
In September 2020 and February 2021, Buidhe and a user called Jacinda01 added these facts to Muszynski's Wikipedia biography, using the mainstream Polish newspapers OKO Press and Gazeta Wyborcza as their sources.'’
(link) - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 Okay, thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Personal attack issue
|
---|
|
@Adoring nanny - We have a detailed article about World War II casualties of Poland. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Opinion: The most valuable thought so far (as of today) that ArbCom members should reflect on -->Statement by Zero0000 - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Jacinda01
Statement by K.e.coffman
Statement by Lembit Staan
Statement by Levivich
If anybody thinks I've done anything disruptive, I'd ask the diffs to be presented so I can answer for my conduct and we can get on with adjudicating it (in any forum). If nobody thinks I've done anything disruptive, I'd ask to be removed as a party. In the meantime, I'm not going to comment on other editors' conduct while my own conduct is under review. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Mhorg
Statement by Mick gold
I'm not sure how to respond to being informed about this issue, except to echo the concerns articulated by Floq. Especially his bullet point #2. Mick gold (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes
1. Please read what Zero0000 said below.
2. I think all listed long-term contributors did a reasonably good content work in this subject area, probably as good as non-experts (they are not professional historians) can do. Authors of the article (G. and K.) simply have no idea what is WP and how it works. They assume bad faith. They do not know that "every version is wrong version", that people are amateurs and frequently make mistakes only to fix them later, etc. There is no stable version of anything. There is no malice.
3. I am not going to participate in this case. This is all about content, and I know too little on the subject of Holocaust in Poland. I did participate in a number of discussions and made a few edits, but only as a member of the community.
4. The article was authored by Jan Grabowski. At least six people who appear as parties to this case edited his BLP page [3], and they had content disputes. It well could be that the publication by Grabowski had a purpose (or may have an effect) of influencing his own coverage in WP and as such qualify as WP:COI, even though he does this indirectly, i.e. by publishing something off-wiki. And even if his intention was only influencing the coverage of the subject of Holocaust in Poland - by eliminating contributors who have different views (after reading his article, it is obvious he has such intention), this still looks very bad. I do not think that Abrcom should allow to be manipulated by Grabowski. Therefore, I would suggest not to take this case and leave this to community. My very best wishes (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Among references in the article by Grabowsky and Klein I found these interviews by Klein who is currently active in WP. It means there was a recent off-wiki coordination between Klein and some participants who appear in these interviews. Of course I do not see any off-wiki coordination as a crime. This maybe be a productive collaboration to improve the project or not; this needs an assessment. As a note of order, I did not have any off-wiki communications with any WP contributors for many years (and do not participate in any WP-related interviews) - as a matter of principle.
- I can make two conclusions from the interviews by Klein, including the one with the WMF:
- The interviews support my point #4 above, i.e. that the article in The Journal of Holocaust Research was written and published specifically to influence WP (that is what they do right now), rather than as independent academic research.
- Based on the questions, the interviewer (Klein) knows very little about WP, which is only natural for someone with so little experience around here (Grabowski probably knows even less). Furthermore, the interviews focus on Icewhiz. Hence, the ghostwriting (or at least a co-authorship) by Icewhiz is indeed very much probable. Actually, I have only one question to User:Chapmansh: did she communicate off-wiki with Icewhiz? It seems obvious that she did. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Nihil novi
Statement by Paul Siebert
Statement by Piotrus
For now, I can mostly point to Volunteer Marek's comment (Edit: also the statement by uninvolved Zero0000 is something I fully endorse and encourage everyone to read) as I can't think of anything better to say except make one point.
In the past, particularly recent (I believe a few exceptions can be found in some ancient ArbCom or two), Committee tended to focus on explicitly commenting on editor's faults, but not on their merits (or even the lack of faults). For example, parties that are found innocent are not really declared as such, they are just not sanctioned. Given that Icewhiz has explicitly stated that his goal is to destroy the reputation of his "enemies", and has duped outside media outlets into repeating his slanderous claims, perhaps it is time to reconsider this and if applicable, issue some findings of innocence or good standing at the end of those proceedings. In other words, community needs to deal with harassment not only by dealing with harassers (which is difficult in cases of harassment by already banned/off wiki parties) but find a way to actively support the victims. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Poeticbent
Statement by Szmenderowiecki
I need two or three days to prepare a statement as I am busy IRL. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Voceditenore
Statement by Volunteer Marek
Right at the moment, writing impulsively from the top of my head and bottom of my heart I … am of two minds about this. Allow me to lay out my concerns and thoughts in a Pro vs. Con format, from my point of view:
Con
- Arbitration Cases are a colossal sink of time and extremely stressful for those involved. I don’t need that in my life.
- This particular case is almost guaranteed to increase the level of off-wiki harassment and threats that I have experienced over the past four years. I am genuinely worried about my personal safety.
- I am concerned that like with the Icewhiz case, the Committee will devote insufficient time to studying the evidence and will do another “let’s just ban everyone” ruling.
- I am concerned that some Committee members may be intimidated by external pressures. If they don’t deliver the kind of verdict that Icewhiz, or Grabowski & Klein, desire, they may fear they will experience harassment similar to what I have incurred.
- Virtually all of the content that is contained in the G&K article has already been examined either by ArbCom or at AE or other venues. There’s nothing new here since last summer. Indeed pretty much the entire second half of the G&K article is basically just diffs from the 2019 Icewhiz case.
- The reminder of the content of the article concerns edits made by long gone users (Poeticbent etc) with a lot of these edits dating back to 2008 or earlier.
Pro
- The article makes a series of completely false allegations directed at me and I welcome any opportunity to help me clear my name. I know there will be plenty of dirt thrown (there always is) and there will lots of yelling and obfuscation but I do believe the evidence speaks for itself. I have already compiled A LOT of analysis of the underlying issues and would be happy to present them.
While I have more “Cons” than “Pros” in the above I also feel that my “Pro” is a lot more important than any individual “Con” except for #2 and so I have not settled upon which way I lean at this moment.
As an aside I'm wondering why User:Poeticbent, who has not made any edits in four years is being included as a party, but User:Chapmansh, who wrote the article that is prompting this is being omitted? Volunteer Marek 20:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
GoldenRing also hasn't been around since 2022. (and to add, yes, this would be like, I don't know "quadruple" or "quintuple" jeopardy . Volunteer Marek 20:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Xx236
Statement by Drmies
I'm not sure what we are doing here. Are we going to judge the behavior of Wikipedia editors on-wiki based on the statements in an article? We're not judging the article, of course--but there's plenty judging to be done. And then there's this, "Editors named in the article but not included are those who are indefinitely blocked/banned, who are deceased, or who are or were sitting Arbs"--well, I was an Arb, a sitting one (?), but I'm named. I don't know why Arbs, current or former, should be excluded in the first place, but clearly I'm not excluded. So I would have a few things to say, about the article mostly, but also about initiating an Arb case based on something that cites a banned editor so heavily and is flawed in ways outlined by other editors, particularly User:Zero0000, in a process that seems flawed or at least questionable from the beginning, as Floquenbeam for instance signaled. What are we doing here? Drmies (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am somewhat cheered by Barkeep49's rationale for accepting the case--so we're essentially going through this because the ball was dropped earlier. And using a peer-reviewed article as a jumping board is a valid rationale--it's just sad that it's this peer-reviewed article. No, I'm not going to fault the reviewer or the journal editor, I guess, for not checking everything, but as I noted elsewhere, being cited incompletely can be seriously misleading, as happened to me. Which one of the two authors was responsible for that, I can't tell, but if "source misrepresentation" is going to be part of it, as Sandstein suggested, than User:Chapmansh (not on the list?) has something to answer for as well. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by El C
In so far as myself being instrumental in having ArbCom rescind VM's EE TBAN; in so far as myself being instrumental in having GCB's EE TBAN lifted at AE; in so far as myself being especially lenient on Piotrus' post-EMML CANVASS violations — my guilt is bottomless. No admonishment ArbCom might give me could come close to that which I direct to myself. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.
All I can say is that I made these pivotal mistakes in good faith; but the outcome is what it is nonetheless. I felt Icewhiz's egregious harassment of them served as a sufficient mitigating factor, but now I feel like I got duped. More so than any other time on-wiki before or after. In hindsight, the red flags were all there, so again, I don't have a good defense for having faltered so spectacularly.
I'm not sure to what extent I'll get to participate in this proceeding due to unrelated RL events, so, at this time, I'd like to make one correction to the journal article as it pertains to myself. The article quotes me as saying (and makes me seem as if) "I don't see a problem" with the obvious "false statement on most property being returned to Jews." But what I meant was that this wasn't a problem as a BLP violation only. Obviously, as an admin, I had no authority to weigh in or decide on the content, regardless of my own views. Oh well, I'll take that; I deserve so much worse. El_C 17:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by GoldenRing
I lurk but am not active here and am no longer an administrator. If there is specific input the committee would like from me then please ask but my involvement here is so far in the past that memory will be a significant issue. What I do remember is that there is almost certainly POV-pushing on both sides but that the subject is so large and complex, and the vast majority of sources so non-English-language, that even figuring out what is going on is beyond anyone who has a full-time job. POV-pushing is not necessarily conscious POV-pushing; it is a topic where it takes a lot of caution to reflect the complexity of the situation in the WWII context where we are prone to reduce everything to good/bad narratives. I don't have great ideas on how to fix this and I think that's fairly reflected in how my comments are treated in the linked article. GoldenRing (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, what Sandstein said. GoldenRing (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
As an administrator formerly active in AE in this topic area, I am surprised to find myself named a party to a sua sponte arb case, and echo Floqenbeam's questions and concerns. I do not intend to participate in the case unless asked to by arbitrators, and accordingly request to be removed as a party.
With respect to whether a case is warranted, I don't really have an opinion, since I've not followed developments in this particular contested topic area for several years now. I suppose that the allegations made in the Journal of Holocaust Research article that I understand triggered the present case, as well as any related allegations of serious offwiki misconduct, do warrant investigation. But I'm not sure that this can be done independently of attempting to adjudicate the underlying content / historical dispute (which is apparently about the degree of complicity of various groups in the Holocaust in Poland). Perhaps the focus of the case, if the Committee decides to open one, could be to examine any allegations of serious editorial misconduct (source misrepresentation, tendentious editing, etc.) on the part of individual editors with more focus and thoroughness than an ad hoc AE thread would be able to. Sandstein 13:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by TonyBallioni
Statement by Ymblanter
I do not see how I can contribute here. The episode which is mentioned in the article was extremely unpleasant to me, but the arbitrators know this, and the user who needs to be blocked is not going to be blocked, so I am not sure why I am being dragged here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Blablubbs
I usually keep my distance from DS CT topic areas and arbcom drama, but I did read the recent paper by Grabowski & Klein with great interest; I'm glad to see that this is happening, and I commend the committee for being proactive in tackling this issue. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Alanscottwalker
In the absence of an English Wikipedia mechanism to have an "ad-hoc" or "blue-ribbon" commission to investigate, make recommendations, etc, I think we (you) should do this, and it at least should consider, no further sanctions, but still examine what allegations appear supported, not supported, or need further context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Floq
I have no opinion on if this case request should be accepted, so maybe I should be posting on a talk page somewhere. Clerks/Arbs can feel free to move this. But my gut finds the way the case request has been opened troubling, for reasons I have a hard time formulating in my head. My (weak) attempt at translating what my gut is feeling:
- Maybe the very large potential parties list is intended to get a lot of opinions on whether to actually have a case or not? But the fact that ArbCom created the case request itself (and Barkeep's comment) certainly makes it look like the odds are pretty good you're going to open one, and the only question is what gets looked at and who gets listed as a party in the actual case. I would certainly have a sinking feeling if I were listed there, just because someone mentioned me in an article.
- Are potential parties expected to comment here, at this stage, even if there is no reason to believe they did anything wrong? Usually, being a "party" pretty strongly implies you'd better comment at the case request or you'll regret it later... is that true here? Seems like there are probably a lot of "innocents" caught in this drag net.
- Not sure what the rationale is for omitting past or current Arbs from the potential parties list, but on the surface it sure seems like a bad look. I would assume any current Arbs mentioned in the article will recuse, and could thus be listed as potential parties; is that incorrect? I haven't looked thru the article and made a list of everyone mentioned; is the problem that almost all the current Arbs are mentioned? And in any case, why would former Arbs not have to deal with this, while mere mortals have to?
- This is outsourcing the selection of potential parties to non-Wikipedians. That just seems wrong. Will you do the same the next time Wikipediocracy has a blog post?
- I don't know, that's the best I can do putting it into words, but this huge potential parties list (wide-ranging for mortals, but with past and present Arbs immune) feels like something that is going to turn ugly and not help with much.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
p.s. Note to self: Remember to never volunteer to help out in contentious areas.
One more question: the article markets itself as an essay. Are we sure it was "peer reviewed" in the normal sense of the term? Not a rhetorical question, a real one. i could be misunderstanding. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Deepfriedokra
I can only echo and amplify Floq's concerns. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Robby.is.on
I don't edit in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland but I've been following discussions about it at various Wikipedia venues for a few years now, where far too often Polish nationalists have kept the upper hand thanks to what to seems like well-organised concerted efforts. I've skimmed Grabowski and Klein's scientific paper and what it describes is absolutely horrific and disgusting.
One thing I frequently observe is that the Polish nationalist group gangs up on other editors. After I twice came to François Robere's defence at their Talk page, GizzyCatBella turned up to my Talk page to inquire about me which I found chilling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robby.is.on/Archive_3#Puzzle_clarification_request
(edit conflict) Ah, I see GizzyCatBella's ever-watching eye has picked up my emotional outburst at TonyBallioni's Talk page. Keeping everyone in check, I guess.
I sincerely hope Grabowski and Klein's paper works as a wakeup call to the many people who haven't taken the issue of historical revisionism and distortion seriously. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Where's the alleged personal attack? The fact that articles in the Holocaust in Poland topic area have been full of anti-semitic content is well-evidenced by the Grabowski and Klein paper. Have you read it? Robby.is.on (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella, is there a language problem? "anti-semitic crap" clearly didn't refer to any specific comment. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Banedon
Addressed clerking request
|
---|
@Barkeep49: @Wugapodes: - perhaps your responses to Ealdgyth's statement should be in its own section? Possibly in the header (to clearly define the scope) or in the comments by arbitrators section? Banedon (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
Statement by Flibbertigibbets
- I revisited Wikipedia after outside parties alerted me to an arbitration request that addressed my concerns about issue framing on the aforementioned topic. I am disinterested in editing Wikipedia because I feel it is too contentious and lacks an operable process. However, I am committed to truth and honesty, and therefore consider this statement a request to ascertain the facts of this matter.
- I am of the perception that systemic editing to distort factual articles is taking place to create a subjective narrative to objective. My perception, and observations regarding GizzyCatBella, is very consistent with the findings in the reasearch article which I consider to be accurate.
- (Redacted)
- Personally, I am committed to truth and honesty, and therefore consider this statement a request to ascertain the facts of this matter beyond my perceptions as outlined. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- In response to the redaction (which I view as censorship) as explained below..
- In this post I ask for fact finding - that fact finding needs to include and consist of a thorough review of @GizzyCatBella's edit history. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Supporting neutrality and factual accuracy (and transparency - not redaction or censure) is essential for maintaining the integrity of any platform. Systemic bias in editing and narrative framing is a concern that should be addressed objectively. It may be necessary to enforce a topic ban on editors who distort factual articles, as this undermines the credibility of the platform. Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that the internal editing process is transparent and neutral, rather than relying on external oversight for reform - which is the case here. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- In Re Comment from @Harry Mitchelll "I'm not sure what ArbCom can usefully do here, given that any "actual arbitration would require looking at the content" and the content creators. A shortfall in process does not ameliorate the need to investigate the presence of inaccurate and biased information.
- As you mentioned there is no process to check the veracity of content quality; and there are no checks on content creators other than back and forth interaction between editors. The arbitration requires a look at the content and an examination of the content creators. With no process for doing so.. that is why outside entities are questioning the content and rightly so.
- Inaccurate and biased information can have significant negative impacts on individuals and society, including the spread of misinformation, polarization, and even harm to people's health and safety. It is essential to have accurate and objective information, particularly in areas such as news, education, and public policy, where it can impact people's decisions and beliefs.
- The study highlights the importance of addressing the presence of biased and inaccurate information.
- Improvements are needed in internal practices, procedures, and content. Again there is no structure here for that kind of introspection; which is one of the reasons I am reticent to participate in this platform.
- Responsibility needs to be taken for the information they create and disseminate, and to ensure that it is accurate, objective, and fact-based.
- Therefore, the imperative to investigate and address inaccurate and biased information (and those who are creating content to frame issues or to objective) it is essential to promoting the well-being and safety of individuals and society as a whole. By doing so, we can work towards a more informed and empowered population and foster a more healthy and equitable society. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Supporting neutrality and factual accuracy (and transparency - not redaction or censure) is essential for maintaining the integrity of any platform. Systemic bias in editing and narrative framing is a concern that should be addressed objectively. It may be necessary to enforce a topic ban on editors who distort factual articles, as this undermines the credibility of the platform. Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that the internal editing process is transparent and neutral, rather than relying on external oversight for reform - which is the case here. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Adoring nanny
I have concerns about the Grabowski/Klein article[4] underlying this case. Grabowski states up front that the figure of 3 million non-Jewish Poles killed during WW2 is "false". Looking around at sources on the Web, I agree that many estimates are lower, but Grabowski doesn't make a case for such a categorical assertion. I see the US Holocaust Museum says[5] that It is estimated that the Germans killed between 1.8 and 1.9 million non-Jewish Polish civilians during World War II. But that number doesn't include non-Jewish Polish military deaths during the German invasion, military deaths during the 1939 Russian invasion, military deaths later in the war, non-Jewish Poles who died due to wartime conditions, non-Jewish Poles killed during the 1944-5 Russian advance, or non-Jewish Poles murdered by the Russians before or after the German occupation, such as the Katyn massacre. What is Grabowski's methodology for counting non-Jewish Poles killed during WW2? And on what basis does he say that the 3 million number is "false"?
Furthermore, the Grabowski article makes much of VM's deletions at Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. Reading Grabowski, one gets the impression that VM was whitewashing Chodakiewicz. Yet a version of the Chodakiewicz article[6] that was recently stable for 9 months is highly critical. And when I spot-checked the most recent VM deletion [7], it looked reasonable to me.
Perhaps peer review is less of a guarantee of reliability than we consider it to be.
- Zero0000 said[8] it much better than I could. The GK article should be viewed as the work of a party in a dispute. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Joe Roe
I'm quoted in the paper as saying that I think the 2019 committee did a poor job with the previous case, which I stand by. Part of that was circumstances (after WP:FRAMBAN and a spate of resignations we were down to six active arbs), but part of it was systematic. As Grabowski & Klein argue themselves, a volunteer committee without subject-matter expertise is just not suited to handle cases like this, where surface-level conduct issues mask deeper problems of source representation and (alleged) coordinated POV-pushing that even specialists have a hard time untangling. So although we definitely have to do something about this, I'm not too optimistic that a second arbitration case is going to work, even though this iteration of the committee is doubtless more capable than we were by September 2019. If you're going to try, I'd think the two major mistakes we made, and which I hope you'll be able to avoid, were shying away looking deeply into the content/sourcing issues (though you also have to avoid imposing your own interpretation on them – perhaps the Grabowski & Klein article helps here?) and being too quick to fall back on god will recognise his own. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by DeCausa
I think ArbCom should take ths case and commend it for proactively raising this. I don't edit in this area and don't know enough about the article subject matter or the specifics of what's gone on to have a clear view. But (1) I've observed from the outside the ongoing issues, including the Icewhiz saga, and it's clearly unresolved and the outcomes of previous processes questionable. One way or another this boil needs lancing. (2) I've read the Grabowski and Klein essay and even if only 20% of it is true, action is needed to address the issues raised. The essay is getting serious traction IRL. It can't be written off as a "talk page rant" and it's "all been said before". There's too many specifics, too much supporting material cited, and too much credibility in the essay's acceptance for publication in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal to be easily written off in that way.
While I don't edit in this area and don't know the rights or wrongs of this particular issue, I recognise generically the issues relating to a single minded POV group controlling an area of editing. I think we must all know examples of it, sometimes in highly sensitive or political areas such as this one, sometimes in low prominence and esoteric areas. Whether it's happenened in this particular case, I can't say. It is a cancerous presence in Wikipedia though. Optimistically, I would hope that Arbcom could find "the answer" to that generically. That's a ridiculous long-shot of course. I think a key question is that if it is found that Grabowski and Klein's analyis is substantially true, then what went wrong with our processes previously and what needs to change to those processes stop it happening again should be within scope of the case. (I'd emphasise the if once again in that sentence.)
The reason not to accept this case is that there is a massive question mark over whether Arbcom is the right process to get to the complex heart and the truth of it. But it's the best we've got. Good luck. DeCausa (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Timtrent
As a non party I can only look on in some dismay. I have read as much of the external papers as I can bear, and find that we are not clean on this article (or set of articles) in this area. It appears to me that our checks and balances are likely to have been subverted, perhaps by accident, perhaps on purpose.
I am emotionally unable to work in the Holocaust area because of family history, though not in Poland as far as I know, so my part here is limited to suggesting that not only does Arbcom take the case, but that their taking of it and decision making in it should be subject to an external audit by an independent and professional auditor.
I suggest the external audit not as a criticism of current or past Arbcom processes and decisions, but to seek to ensure in the world outside Wikipedia that everything reasonable has both been done and been seen to be done. I recognise that this will cost WMF money, but I believe it will be money well spent. Further, it will give our Arbcom team additional confidence in their decision making. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000 (non-party)
- Peer review. One of the most persistent wiki-myths is that journals fact-check the articles they publish. Actually reviewers are only expected to check the correctness of articles in some limited disciplines like mathematics. Of course reviewers will report any errors they notice, but reviews generally focus on originality, relevance, clarity and potential interest to readers. It is unlikely that any reviewers looked at all the diffs and almost impossible that any of them studied the background to those diffs (which would require deep knowledge of Wikipedia as well as much more time than a typical reviewer devotes to a review). It is not valid to assume that peer-review bestows correctness. (I write as someone with almost 50 years of experience in academic publishing, albeit in a different field.)
- The Holocaust in Poland is the subject of fierce debate within academia, not just within Wikipedia. The debate spills into the public and political arenas even up to relations between governments. Few of the involved academics can be correctly described as neutral. In the case of Polish-Jewish, Grabowski is the main representative of one side of the debate and his article should be judged with that in mind. Our task in Wikipedia is to fairly present all sides of the debate, not to privilege one side. We need editors who can, within the constraints of policy, present all notable opinions present in reliable sources. Few editors can do this, not least because a large fraction of the sources are in Polish. Losing the main editors who can do justice to either side would be a disaster.
- Reading Grabowski's article. Editors who support his position are angels who are incapable of doing wrong, while those holding other views are devils pushing antisemitic canards. Black hats and white hats like old Westerns. All mistakes made by the black hats are deliberate, and a Wikipedia-wide conspiracy involving admins is hinted at darkly. Many of the examples have long disappeared, but this self-correcting nature of WP is not acknowledged. Nothing in the article, including historical claims, should be taken on faith and only adherence to reliable sources should be judged, not adherence to the "truth".
- The particular editors who are most under attack have no chance of defending themselves within the 500-word limit. An increase should be permitted to them as well as to an equal number on the other "side".
- Personally I cannot envisage a useful outcome to this case and if it was up to me I would not embark on it.
Statement by GRuban
I don't envy the role of the arbitrators here. They basically have three options:
- Decide that Volunteer Marek and company need to be hung up by their heels ... and thereby firmly enstate the frightening precedent that if you disagree with an Arbcom decision, you need to go write an article about it in a peer reviewed journal.
- Decide that the article is tainted by association with Icewhiz, and basically ignore it ... and thereby firmly enstate the no less frightening precedent that even writing an article in a peer reviewed journal won't change an Arbcom decision.
- Go point by point down the many claims of the article, extensively reviewing each one on its merits ... which basically means becoming experts in judging Polish WWII historical scholarship. Lordy.
As DeCausa writes, it's an act of courage to put this case up for consideration. I hope the arbitrators accept it and do it justice. Now, as Zero0000 writes, I find it hard to imagine what justice could even look like here. But that's why Zero, and I, are not arbitrators, for which I find regular cause to be grateful. Whatever the decision will be, many will be unhappy. Maybe I'll be unhappy. Heck, I'm unhappy just reading the journal article, clearly two sets of dedicated, knowledgeable, well-meaning people interested in this topic area hate each other with a passion. That's not the Wikipedia I like to think about. Yet, doing justice here is the job the arbcom signed up for: being the few and the proud, the man in the arena. That is what it means to be human, to know that you could make mistakes, even that you will make mistakes, and yet to try. You have to try, because not trying is definitely wrong. Go get 'em. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by North8000
Shortcomings in policies and guidelines lead to these problems on contentious topics. This can and often happens without violating the letter of conduct rules. I wish you the best and thank you for trying to resolve this using the tools that you have which is dealing with it as a conduct issue. But I'm not optimistic on that and please don't hurt any editors where it is not clearly warranted. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Chess
I'm not involved in this, but User:Chapmansh acknowledges that she is the Shira Klein that wrote this article. I'd like to flag for the committee that she is currently overseeing a Wiki Education course called Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Chapman University/Jewish Life from Napoleon to Hitler (Spring 2023). She also taught this course in 2021, [9] and student editors in that edition of the course focused on the Holocaust. Given that she has prompted an ArbCom case about coordinated editing on Wikipedia w.r.t. POV-pushing in Holocaust topics, it may be prudent to not oversee a coordinated editing group on the subject of the Holocaust. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 16:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- I should add on that while I don't see any behavioural problems with edits in that course in 2021, given that this case is shaping up to be the culmination of one of the biggest sagas of WikiDrama in this website's history, it would probably best for student editors to avoid being brought into it. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 16:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
If ArbCom does accept this case, the number of words editors are alotted should be greatly increased. The essay has hundreds of diffs; editors need space to rebut all this. Even the linked essay complains about how evidence is made unclear when constrained by the committee’s strict word limit.
Increasing the word/diff limits during evidence should be broadly agreeable to all parties.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDay
Is this the same topic, that involved concerns about sock puppetry by Icewhiz? -- GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Clovermoss
I'm at a loss in regards to what to say about the underlying subject matter because I don't understand what's going on here and everything is way above my level of expertise (which is none). But given that Jacinda01 was named as a party and GizzyCatBella's response to that, I thought I might have something relevant to say. I'm sure that in a CT (and given what I understand about the whole Icewhiz craziness) is that they're actually are a lot of sockpuppets running around and that'd be frustrating to deal with. But not everyone is a sockpuppet. I consider Levivich to be one of my friends. I think it's unfair that people imply that he's a sockpuppet (even as recently as this past summer [11]). If this is beyond the purview of the case, I understand. Personally I'd just feel better if someone said this sort of thing was not okay. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify my concerns a bit more, reading this may be helpful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Mzajac
I’m not familiar with this dispute, but I am active in adjacent subject areas.
I have a lot of concerns about the way this is framed through a public shaming by a third party. I hope it doesn’t set the specific agenda of any resulting action. But it certainly points to a serious broad problem of which this is merely one manifestation.
Editing in contentious topics is fraught. Despite the existence of discretionary sanctions and general sanctions, dealing with these topics is working in a hostile environment. There is little general community or admin reinforcement of good behaviour or discouragement of bad behaviour. Bitter disputes are in evidence and threatening to escalate constantly, and one is always deciding between giving up on an article or subject, or having to choose to stand up for some principle of guidelines or content against unreasonable argumentation and passive and overt denigration of one’s arguments, one’s views, and even one’s identity. An editor cannot count on the protection of the behavioural and editing guidelines, unless they are willing to aggressively pursue cases in intimidating dispute-resolution forums where the results appear to depend on the whim of a random or not-so-random admin who decides to close the dispute. It is not hard to become constantly on edge in the face of implied threats to try to bring action, even over purely good-faith editing.
I don’t know if there are “groups” coordinating “zealous handiwork.” I’ve been on either side of both cordial and unpleasant disputes with several of the named editors. But an editor in a contentious topic can definitely feel the tyranny of coincidental WP:BIAS by a random majority in a particular discussion.
I hope the Arbitration Committee does take this on as an opportunity to identify systematic problems with editing in contentious subjects and make recommendations or take action to improve them. A good start would be to simply encourage consistent and fair enforcement of the existing contentious-editing rules to tamp down the general level of fear and loathing. —Michael Z. 17:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Implicit in all this is that if the community, admins, and arbitrators had done a better job of ensuring ensuring a collaborative and self-moderating environment, all these names would not have been publicly pilloried in the first place. I’d rather we acknowledge our shared responsibility and address systemic problems, than see Arbcom selectively pursue someone because they happened to be active in some particular academics’ chosen subject area when they were acting within the parameters permitted by our flawed system. Let’s not start any show trials unless the reign of terror is to equitably extend to every single contentious topic where biases differ. —Michael Z. 18:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Tryptofish
I share the concern expressed by some others, about relying on an outside publication as the impetus (in part!) for a case. I've had a professional lifetime in dealing with academic journal peer review, and, as for how ArbCom should understand it here, well, it's complicated. What journal reviewers might look for in "scholarliness" is different from what Wikipedia thinks of as "objectivity/NPOV". It's entirely possible that the authors of the paper wrote with an agenda.
In accepting a case, I urge ArbCom to spell out, from the start, some precise expectations about what does or does not constitute evidence for the case. What ArbCom traditionally treats as evidence – diffs and such – should be relied on as evidence, whereas "the academics who wrote the paper said so, and that's embarrassing for us" should not stand on its own as evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- I share Floq's view about it being a "bad look" to omit the usernames of current and past Arbs, even if this is only a matter of appearance and not of substance. Just as a matter of good appearances, I think ArbCom should list, above, the usernames of all Arbs mentioned in the article, simply as information, and not necessarily with a sense of making them parties. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Before starting the case, it will also be essential to articulate the scope, and to do so in a precise and narrow way that doesn't let it spread beyond manageable bounds. Perhaps limit it to:
- Misrepresenting what sources actually say,
- Pushing to include/exclude sources in ways that disrupt consensus, and
- Attacking/impugning/harassing other editors.
- --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Before starting the case, it will also be essential to articulate the scope, and to do so in a precise and narrow way that doesn't let it spread beyond manageable bounds. Perhaps limit it to:
Statement by TrangaBellam
A Twitter account eponymous to one of the mainstays of this (would-be) case has accused two highly reputed scholars of publishing material ghost-written by Icewhiz. While such paranoia may or may not be justified in light of Icewhiz's disruptive activities, such behaviour does disservice to our project. Clerk note: link has been recieved by ArbCom
I will also urge Arbcom to tread cautiously; pace what Piotrus and others say, the Polish Right's view on Holocaust is rejected by almost every acclaimed Holocaust scholar outside of Poland. It won't take long for the authors of the essay to get a long list of signatories in support. And the cited evidence is extraordinarily strong; they have, clearly, done their homework. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- ThadeusOfNazereth hits the nail on the head. As Levivich (and I believe, others) have noted, the go-to behaviour of a set of certain POV pushers has been to scream "Icewhiz" and claim immunity. I have no sympathies for a Office-banned editor but the conduct of the rest — esp. around core content policies — needs probing by ArbCom. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Firefangledfeathers
Some editors have wondered whether the paper at hand was peer-reviewed. I emailed the journal's editorial team, and I received a response that said "Indeed, the article "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" was subject to peer-review prior to its publication." I forwarded the full email to Arbcom. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by SamX
I have some thoughts I'd like to share, but not enough time to adequately summarize them. I should be able to post by 06:00 UTC. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by ThadeusOfNazereth (Non-party)
I am not a party to this case and have no plans to participate in any way when ArbCom inevitably accepts this, but I want to note my disappointment at the wide array of WP:ASPERSIONS being cast here, including people alleging the peer-review process was bypassed, that the article was somehow ghostwritten by a banned editor, and that one of the authors wrote the article to improve their own Wikipedia coverage. To an uninvolved editor, it reads like conspiracy-minded fear-mongering, and is frankly evidence that whatever results from this case will be doomed from the beginning. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment from Harry Mitchell
I'm not sure what ArbCom can usefully do here, given that any actual arbitration would require looking at the content and would therefore be without its remit. I would suggest that the journal paper in question be given limited weight at least because of the obvious association with Icewhiz. As academics, the authors should be well aware that being "right" does not justify misconduct; an academic who behaved the way Icewhiz has towards other Wikipedia editors in a university or academic publishing environment wold no more be allowed to publish in the name of that institution than Icewhiz is allowed to edit Wikipedia. It is disappointing that somebody whose conduct was so abhorrent has been treated so sympathetically in the journal.
The dispute on Wikipedia will not go away until the dispute in the real world does, as is the case for all ethno-political conflicts, which make up the vast majority of the recognised contentious topics. We try to manage editor conduct but administrators and arbitrators are not qualified to be arbiters of content. We also have limited means at our disposal to deal with people who have no interest in following our policies and who have the time and resources to create many accounts to evade blocks or topic bans.
One thing that might help, if there were academics who would play ball, is to have some sort of arbitration (in the real-world sense, not the Wikipedia sense) where a panel of academics can discuss things like reliability of sources and factual accuracy with Wikipedia editors, but the results of those discussions would be binding unless new sources were presented.
Finally, I do think it would help if some the more prolific editors in the topic area voluntarily took a step back to allow cooler heads to prevail and avoid the perception that it is dominated by small groups of closely aligned editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Folly Mox
(Disclosure: I emailed the committee prior to posting here, but have further thoughts at this stage.) Mainly I'm here to +1 the idea that User:Chapmansh should be added as a party to the case. Clearly the committee has already received evidence from her (in the form of the precipitating paper), and I think the optics are best for all involved if she is formally invited to participate in the case process.
Statement by Buffs (Non-party)
Despite a ban, procedurally shouldn't Icewhiz be invited to participate? It is more than a little unseemly to repeatedly condemn someone without the opportunity to even speak in their own defense (also, I'm not saying I endorse such behavior; this is merely a procedural note). This clearly seems to be a backdoor attempt to disrupt WP by a blocked editor with battleground behaviors, however, that does not mean that all of these complaints are without validity. Such claims should be examined on their own merits and decided accordingly. The disruption should be assessed as well. Buffs (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Holocaust in Poland : Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- re:Ealdgyth I think this is fair. In response, I'd ask you to consider what might make sense to wait until a case is actually opened - where there is likely to be a statement of scope for instance to help you know what to focus on - and what should be written about here at the case request stage. With that said what kind of extension of the word count do you need now? As for what we're looking for I have, speaking only for myself, attempted to give some sense of that but other arbs will have different opinions. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Holocaust in Poland <2/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Normally I post an initial impression and (except for obvious declines) want to hear from the community before posting an official vote. This is not normal and so I am ready to accept. In fact one of the reasons I'm ready to accept now is because I think the decision to not accept last year has proven to be ArbCom's biggest mistake since FRAM. Since then we have had multiple private requests to do something in this topic area (TA) and now we have a peer reviewed article saying that there is a large issue with editor conduct and the resulting content in this TA. I have some problems with the article and I think Elmidae's comment at AN is the best summary of it I've seen
It's essentially a really long talk page rant with outing, published as a peer-reviewed research article in a reputable journal.
The content ultimately does not meet the OUTING threshold for me because outing is a behavioral policy that does not trump content policy and guidelines. Though I admit this article comes closer than most situations where I invoke the behavior policy point to actually being a conduct issue. But while close it remains that this article was written in the authors' roles as academics and I do not think Wikipedia should be sanctioning an academic for writing in a reputable journal on a topic of their study.So we're left with a talk page rant that has been peer-reviewed in a reputable journal alleging major conduct issues. As a Wikipedian I feel an obligation to follow what reliable sources say rather than what I wish them to say and given the numerous ways they allege our administrative processes have failed I think ArbCom has to step in and step-in in this rather unusual manner. As an Arbitrator, I think their claims need to be carefully examined, as I am not sure all of them will hold up to scrutiny, and I acknowledge, beyond their criticism of Icewhiz, that there are issues on the "other side" which also need examination. I would be remiss if I didn't note my continued feeling that Icewhiz has caused Wikipedians the most harm of any non-govenrment actor in the last 5 years. But I also wonder if the specter of Icewhiz hasn't obfuscated misconduct by a number of parties, including those who agree with Icewhiz on much of the content. All of this, and more, is why it is clear to me that ArbCom has failed the community in its obligation to solve thisserious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve
and so an examination, on a fairly large scale, of editor conduct is now needed. Because this was an unusual situation I supported using an objective standard in noting potential parties, but it is my feeling that not all of these people need the same level of examination of their conduct. I am, for instance, starting from the bias that the administrators named who were acting in their role as administrators have not violated any policies or guidelines and should be thanked rather than made an involuntary party to the case. If this is not correct I would appreciate evidence offered. And if there are people not listed above who should be made a party I would appreciate that evidence as well. To those that got all the way here, thank you for reasing this rather long accept comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)- @GizzyCatBella: truthfully I'd have put Jacinda01 in the "why bother making them a party" category before but your suggestion about them being IW makes me more inclined to want to keep them. That said they haven't edited since 2021 and so the odds of them turning up here feel small. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Robby.is.on: I had already seen the comment before it was pointed out here and I was trying to figure out how to say something productive to you about it. Having read your comments here, I'm wondering if there would be a way to change your
emotional outburst
(as you put it) so it's still emotional without being an outburst so that I (and potentially other arbs/admins) don't need to figure out which side of the border the borderline comment falls on? Put another way, can you find a version that expresses the strength of your opinions without veering into PA territory? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC) - Piotr the idea of supporting victims by declaring them innocent is interesting. My one concern on first thought is that no one deserves the kind of harassment certain LTAs dish out including victims who may have violated policies and guidelines themselves. But it really is an interesting idea and so I want to keep thinking about it. Thanks for the thought. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Chess: I anticipate the committee discussing, if this case is accepted, the parties including potentially adding Chapmansh. If you have concerns about current classes I'd encourage you to use the Education Noticeboard as that is likely to get the appropriate eyes on it and perhaps have faster/better resolution than what ArbCom can offer. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Buffs: editors banned by the Wikimedia Foundation are excluded from any and all particiaption in anything around Wikipedia. It is not unseemly to speak ill of someone whose harassment has been proven to the satiisfaction of English Wikipedia, the global community, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It is instead a statement of fact in the same way that we note people who've been convicted of terrible crimes in our articles about them. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- For people who are saying that we need to add Chapmansh as a party, what Wikipedia Policies and/or Guidelines have they potentially violated and what is the evidence (diff) to support that? From what I'm reading here the issues are: improper association with Icewhiz, doxxing, and poor scholarship. But none of those have happened on wiki and all of them are beyond the jurisidiction of the committee. If the idea is simply that they be allowed to be heard on these matters, all English Wikipedia editors are given the opportunity to be heard. If Chapmansh would like the benefits of being a party (which formally include more words and diffs and informally a bit more tolerance of borderline behavior during a case) and were to request that then sure we should add them. But in general outside of requests to be a party, I believe in only adding a party where there is some expectation that evidence of misconduct can be shown, which is why the committee has sometimes chosen not to have the filer of a case as parties in the last couple of years and why I am skeptical that Chapmansh should be added here. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Accept Per my opposition to the previous motion to decline and echoing Barkeep's statement above, our inaction has led to now a second instance of public censure and the continued potential for off-wiki harassment of our community members. Unacceptable then, and unacceptable now.I believe a significant portion of blame rests on the shoulders of the Arbitration Committee for failing to adequately attend to the needs of the community across the multiple times our attention was requested, and it is this plain error which justifies our unusual resumption of proceeding on our own motion. Icewhiz has been a scourge these last five years, and our inability to adequately handle his disruption has led to the breakdown of our editorial community, general decorum, and article quality. These effects are diffuse, leading to fatigue of our volunteers, and a battleground where only those willing to put up with the potential for harassment---from many "sides"---can edit. This is not how a high-quality encyclopedia is written. We were asked in 2019 to review conduct in this area, but the Committee was small and attention diverted. The number of arbitrators participating in the 2019 case (6!) would not even constitute a majority of this body. In fact, more arbitrators were in the minority to accept the 2021 request than participated in the 2019 case. We did not give our full attention in 2019, and when that error led to continued problems, we were asked in 2021 to revisit the issue. We narrowly declined, asking the community to use our existing procedures contrary to the statements of our community members who explained why these procedures have failed them so far. Our failure to respond has led to editors feeling more comfortable speaking about these issues to external academic than to the Committee tasked with resolving them, and as a result, we once again have a public article impugning our encyclopedia, administrative procedures, and editors. We cannot sit by, once again, and hope that the editors we sent away last time take time away from their other tasks while they check a procedural box for us. The community already gave us the right to revisit previous proceedings; let's not waste more of their time with the procedural game of having them ask us to remedy our own contribution to the problem. This will not be an easy issue to resolve, but the Committee was not convened to solve easy issues. We have the opportunity to give this topic the diligence and care necessary to properly resolve it. We have the attention of academics and scholars who believe our content is important. We have editors on-record laying out where our procedures have failed and with ideas on how to improve them. We have a large and active committee with few parallel obligations and the capacity to share the workload. We can leverage these resources now or wait for this decade-long problem to get still worse. The committee waited last time, and I hope we do not make the same mistake again. — Wug·a·po·des 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Speaking for myself regarding your questions:
Maybe the very large potential parties list is intended to get a lot of opinions on whether to actually have a case or not?
Editors mentioned generally had some level of participation in the topic area and may have statements or evidence of interest. It also means they get notified immediately, so this means they don't find out from someone else that they're included in this article or that we're considering it. Parties can be added or removed at the Committee's discretion, so starting with a more objective metric and removing as necessary is exactly to avoid the issue of a party list being a "you've done something wrong and sanctions are coming" list.Are potential parties expected to comment here, at this stage, even if there is no reason to believe they did anything wrong?
Parties are invited to make a statement, but participation is voluntary.Usually, being a "party" pretty strongly implies you'd better comment at the case request or you'll regret it later... is that true here?
Personally, I don't think there should be that reading. In fact, if someone feels they don't have much to contribute, a statement of "I only commented once and have nothing to really add, can I be removed" is a valid response and a request that I would take seriously.Not sure what the rationale is for omitting past or current Arbs from the potential parties list, but on the surface it sure seems like a bad look....is the problem that almost all the current Arbs are mentioned?
The Committee as an institution was criticized generally, and while a few quotes were pulled from motion votes, the focus was on the committee.And in any case, why would former Arbs not have to deal with this, while mere mortals have to?
We already have their private correspondence related to these cases in our archives, and unless they've been active in this topic area (if my memory serves me, the one or two not currently on the committee haven't been) then they wouldn't even have access to the evidence we would be seeking.This is outsourcing the selection of potential parties to non-Wikipedians. That just seems wrong. Will you do the same the next time Wikipediocracy has a blog post?
Firstly, I think there's an obvious difference between an article written by academics published in a peer-reviewed journal on the topic and a blog post. Secondly, we selected that as the metric after considering other possibilities, so it's not like there's some automatic pipeline devoid of discretion. I would argue that being clear about where and how parties were selected is better than publishing substantially the same list and pretending we just made it up ourselves.Are we sure it was "peer reviewed" in the normal sense of the term?
My understanding is that it is peer-reviewed, the submission instructions mentions only one kind of submission which goes through double-blind peer-review. Journals with multiple sections list the editorial policies separately, for example Language lists each section with separate editorial policies. — Wug·a·po·des 23:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)- Moved from Ealdgyth's section Speaking for myself, statements addressing the following would be most helpful (1) what if any conduct issues still exist which have not been resolved by previous cases or administrative action? (2) how effective are existing procedures in this area, and if you believe they are ineffective, what is the apparent cause of the ineffectiveness? (3) would arbitration be effective in this instance or have existing dispute resolution processes been sufficient? — Wug·a·po·des 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Speaking for myself regarding your questions:
- I'd like to set some expectations here, quoting directly from a clerk comment Guerillero made in a past case request:
I would like to preemptively warn everyone above (and those who have yet to comment) that I am going to take a dim view to incivility, well poisoning, gratuitous mud slinging, and general nastiness.
I'm well aware that this is a fraught topic area, but that just means we all need to be on our best behavior. Clerks and arbs have the power to delete or refactor problematic comments (it's in the editnotice), and we will be making use of this if needed. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC) I anticipate accepting, but am waiting for the community to catch up. I am currently thinking about how best to structure the case. I expect a significant amount of bytes will be spent on the context of the statements the paper makes, but I am not sure the typical case structure will accommodate that smartly. Perhaps an atypical subpage akin to a workshop where editors can discuss the specific statements made on a given page and/or the other edits that would give context to each of the footnotes, maybe with relaxed word requirements.
For evidence not directly pertaining to the specific words and footnotes in the paper, I think the usual structure and location would be reasonable.
We are also entertaining the best scope. While the paper has focused on the Holocaust in Poland, many of the parties are also active in the rest of the topic area defined in the case request (Eastern Europe). Do the issues of conduct not-specific to the topic matter of the Holocaust in Poland presented by the paper extend there also? Izno (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am inclined to accept, but I am waiting to read statements. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)