None of the Wikipedia volunteer editors who add and improve content in articles receive any financial benefit. We all simply contribute our time because we care about building a great encyclopedia for you and innumerable others around the world to use.
If you cannot afford it, no one wants you to donate. Wikipedia is not at risk of shutting down, and the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform and is asking for these donations, is richer than ever. Hosting costs are around £2 million, while salaries for staff who do not contribute to making Wikipedia, but who are the ones asking for donations, are £67 million
I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama
Our text should arise as a summary of the reliable sources, rather than editors first deciding what they want to say and then looking for sources. Agricolae
I am open to recall, using Whpq's wording from their RfA:
"if editors I trust and respect are telling me I should not be an admin, then I would voluntarily resign as an administrator."
Bureaucrat chat - invitation to participate
The RfA for MB has gone to a bureaucrat chat. Please join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
ARCA
While unfortunately there isn't consensus to do anything wouldn't it be better to close it for now and allow the suggested things do be done and then re-open rather than having to wait another year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please take the advice given, and make a real effort at doing an appropriate appeal next year along the lines that have been suggested to you. If you try to do something different, including as now approaching individual arbs with your own suggestions on how to do things, you will likely do yourself no favour. Accept that this appeal has not worked, and move on. SilkTork (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy Seventeenth First Edit Day!
Hey, SilkTork. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC) |
"Unpaved road" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Unpaved road and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 20 § Unpaved road until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
A b r v a g l (PingMe) 19:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Appropriate venue to address the allegations
Hello, SilkTork. I hope everything is going well for you. I was wondering where I might address the allegations made against me in the Arbitration evidence page. Can you please advise where would be the appropriate venue to address the allegations, and whether doing so would even be appropriate or not? A b r v a g l (PingMe) 16:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- You may create a section on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence by editing "Evidence presented by {your user name}" and following the instructions at the top of the page. See the advice marked Rebuttals for dealing with evidence presented by others against you that you feel is wrong. All evidence and rebuttals should be accompanied by links (or diffs), and/or a plausible explanation. You will get more advice at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. And if you need further help or assistance then you should approach the Clerks rather than an Arb. SilkTork (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Disinformation
Disinformation is a major social problem. When nationalists of any stripe attempt to use Wikipedia to spread their disinformation, we must stop them. It's our obligation to society not to become part of the problem. If our Polish Holocaust history articles are still a mess, it's likely that a set of editors are dumping disinformation into those articles and then stonewalling or brigading against corrections. At the least you could look into it. If you clear everyone because it's all old news, that's fine. But I expect you will find fresh, maybe subtle, misconduct if you look closely.
I think it is unreasonable to export Wikipedia's rules into real life. If an academic operates under academic rules (different than ours), but occasionally edits Wikipedia, we do not get to regulate all their off-wiki activities. I think it's good to regulate on-wiki activities, and fair to regulate somebody who's main involvement in a topic area is on-wiki, and then they export a conflict to another platform. The academics in this case are only tangentially involved in Wikipedia and they are not exporting a dispute. They are just doing their thing as academics, and we should be thankful they took the time to tell us how we could improve.
Strong action in this case will discourage future misbehavior by other nationalists. A weak response or a passing of the buck will encourage more misbehavior.
Best regards, Jehochman Talk 21:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be looked into. I started to do that when I first became aware of the polemic essay: [1], and had plans to get more involved in the standard community check and clean up of possibly biased articles, but then got heavily sidetracked by the case request (there is a lot to read in the request itself, and more to read in the submissions emailed to ArbCom, plus the ongoing discussions among the Committee as to what should be done). I am not saying that something shouldn't be done, what I am saying is that I think an ArbCom case is not the appropriate way of doing it. A case is going to be held, and I must now consider if my time and energy is best spent helping out on a case I don't feel we should hold, or on getting involved in looking into the articles and improving them where appropriate. I don't think I have the time and energy to do both. Though my preference would be to do the editing, I did sign up to work on the Committee, and so I will most likely shoulder some of the work on the Committee in analysing closely the claims made in the academic essay.
- I will say I am heartened by your belief that "Strong action in this case will discourage future misbehavior by other nationalists", though sadly that is not a belief I can share. My experience (which I believe I have iterated in the recent and previous ArbCom candidate responses to questions) is that ethnic, political, and nationalist POV/COI issues are commonplace on Wikipedia, and are something we will need to keep dealing with as a matter of course. I personally doubt there will ever be a lasting solution. Same as I doubt there will be a solution to the whitewashing of articles on film stars, music icons, cult films and novels by legions of fans. The bulk of our articles in the fandom area are enthusiastic in their praise and listing of awards, and strangely quiet on balanced and objective discussion of relative strengths and weaknesses. I recognise that Wikipedia is not perfect, so "somebody on the internet says that Wikipedia is not perfect" doesn't quite give me the chills that it seems to give others. What does, however, encourage me is the way that Warsaw concentration camp developed from its hesitant start in 2004, to the detailed, balanced, and helpful article it is today. I am not surprised that the polemic essay preferred to comment on the state of the article back in 2004 rather than how it is today, because it is clear to me as it must be to most reasonable and neutral people reading the essay that it is more of a Daily Mail opinion piece than an example of a balanced academic research paper. The title of the essay sort of gives away its intention. One of the things I am considering is gathering the evidence to propose that The Journal of Holocaust Research is listed as a non-reliable source. But for that I would need the time to read though a reasonable sample of the work they have published over the past 12 months. I doubt I'll have the freedom of time to do that while also helping out on the case. So be it. SilkTork (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- First, I really appreciate your thoughtful response and want to acknowledge that your ideas are reasonable. I admit that I am hopelessly optimistic. This may be a difficult problem that requires multiple approaches. If ArbCom makes a list of the disputes in the area over the last three years and then does a close reading of a random sampling, they will get a clear picture of which editors are habitually frustrating consensus and policy. If those editors receive a broad topic ban, that will help incrementally. We also need to assist neutral editors, such as yourself, who might be interested to delve into the area and improve the articles. An article quality drive is one of the best ways to get rid of problematic sources, but as the FAC people always remind me, FAC is not dispute resolution!
- Icewhiz remains a serious complicating factor. His involvement works to create a battleground. Perhaps we can have some checkusers camp on the topic area and post a notice that any new editor coming to edit these articles is going to be subject to Checkuser inspection because of the unprecedented sock puppetry in the topic area.
- In sum, there are things that can be done to chip away at the problem. We may not be able to solve it entirely or even mostly, but we should still try to do what we can. I appreciate you hosting this discussion. This is more than I want to say on the case page, but I know that many experience editors are watching this page. Jehochman Talk 15:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that editors who are identified as currently frustrating consensus and policy should be sanctioned, and if they have previously been sanctioned that the new sanctions should be of an appropriately serious level up to and including site bans. I am, however, cautious about digging into the past (other than to use as examples of continuous or repeated misbehaviour). Looking at misbehaviour from many years ago which does not relate to recent behaviour (which is what the article did), I feel is not appropriate or helpful. We want to stop ongoing bad behaviour, not punish people for errors of the past which they have perhaps acknowledged and moved on from. If someone is editing inappropriately now (or in the past 12-24 months) then, yes, let us look further into the past to see how serious the sanction should be. But if someone has been positive or even silent for 24 months or more, then let's not waste our time looking into the past. I am dubious of the value of an ArbCom case which is listing people who have been named in an external article for making edits 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. I would, though, have agreed to a case looking into the author who is a Wikipedian, as I feel they have been seriously and deliberately disruptive and I would consider if they should retain a Wikipedia account. SilkTork (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Fun fact: in the past 24 months there have been only two WP:AE reports in this area [2] (April '21) [3] (June '22). That's one report per year... which is crazy-low for what is supposedly a "contentious topic". In both cases the parties were pretty much told to go home and do something better with their time and the reports went stale, got auto archived and were never closed. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting statistic. Thank you for sharing that. It is consistent with the idea that most or nearly all reasonable editors have been driven from the topic area. VM, I believe you said that you had stopped editing the area. Am I right? Jehochman Talk 19:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nah, it is consistent with the idea that Icewhiz ran out of socks. Nobody's been driven out of this area. I have been preoccupied with other things mostly, yes. Volunteer Marek 19:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I would rather be more concerned with the fact that these disputes may "spillover" into other topic areas where some editors from "Holocaust in Poland" follow others to other topics to continue the battlegroundin'. You leave one topic area alone and start editing a new one and all of sudden all these familiar faces, who've never shown an interest in the new topic, pop up. That part does seem like relevant to the case. Volunteer Marek 20:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting statistic. Thank you for sharing that. It is consistent with the idea that most or nearly all reasonable editors have been driven from the topic area. VM, I believe you said that you had stopped editing the area. Am I right? Jehochman Talk 19:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Fun fact: in the past 24 months there have been only two WP:AE reports in this area [2] (April '21) [3] (June '22). That's one report per year... which is crazy-low for what is supposedly a "contentious topic". In both cases the parties were pretty much told to go home and do something better with their time and the reports went stale, got auto archived and were never closed. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that editors who are identified as currently frustrating consensus and policy should be sanctioned, and if they have previously been sanctioned that the new sanctions should be of an appropriately serious level up to and including site bans. I am, however, cautious about digging into the past (other than to use as examples of continuous or repeated misbehaviour). Looking at misbehaviour from many years ago which does not relate to recent behaviour (which is what the article did), I feel is not appropriate or helpful. We want to stop ongoing bad behaviour, not punish people for errors of the past which they have perhaps acknowledged and moved on from. If someone is editing inappropriately now (or in the past 12-24 months) then, yes, let us look further into the past to see how serious the sanction should be. But if someone has been positive or even silent for 24 months or more, then let's not waste our time looking into the past. I am dubious of the value of an ArbCom case which is listing people who have been named in an external article for making edits 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. I would, though, have agreed to a case looking into the author who is a Wikipedian, as I feel they have been seriously and deliberately disruptive and I would consider if they should retain a Wikipedia account. SilkTork (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Note re:ArbCom request
Hi! I was reading through the recent ArbCom request regarding editing on the Holocaust in Poland. Since I have had run-ins with one of the named parties (which resulted in me opening a case at ANI in which several other named parties appeared), and I have not edited anything related to the topic at hand, I feel I'm both too invested and not invested enough to comment. However, there is something I would like to point out and, since I don't believe fact-checking is the primary concern of such a request, that probably isn't important enough to be posted there anyway - in your objection to taking up the case you claim the article states that a user, Halibutt, inserted the claim that "the Germans annihilated 200,000 non-Jewish Poles in a giant gas chamber" into Warsaw concentration camp when they created that article in 2004; when it was in fact another user in 2005 who inserted the note that it was non-Jews
. In fact, the article clarifies (note 25) that "Halibutt first created the “Warsaw Concentration Camp” Wikipedia article in 2004, inserting the statement “provisional gas chambers located in a railway tunnel near the Warszawa Zachodnia train station” and that “some 200,000 people were killed there by the Germans during the war.” Wikipedia article, “Warsaw Concentration Camp,” difference between revisions [hereafter diff] by Halibutt, 2:03, August 25, 2004, [4]. User Vorthax adapted this in 2005 to say that “some 200,000 people (mostly Gentile Poles) were killed there.” Wikipedia article, “Warsaw Concentration Camp,” diff by Vorthax, 9:26, December 17, 2005, [5]." You'll notice the last diff is the very same you posted in your objection at ArbCom. It's more than likely that some inaccuracies are present, and the the footnotes seem to show the article must have been in the pipelines since 2020, which means some issues could already have been addressed, but I believe that particular claim, while it could've been worded better, is addressed more or less properly in the article. Cheers! Ostalgia (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- The statement in the polemic essay reads: "In one glaring example authored by Halibutt, which reached the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in 2019, an entire Wikipedia article claimed for fifteen years that in a concentration camp in Warsaw, the Germans annihilated 200,000 non-Jewish Poles in a giant gas chamber.[Footnote25] Two editors named K.e.coffman and Icewhiz removed this falsehood,[Footnote26] but other manipulations remain and more are added daily to the online encyclopedia." That does not read to me like a balanced or accurate statement. "other manipulations remain and more are added daily" is unsourced and vague, and serves little purpose other than to besmirch Wikipedia, and in particular Halibutt, whose name appears at the front of the statement. There is no mention by either of the authors of the history of the gas chamber claim, and that at the time of insertion into Wikipedia the claim had not been discredited. As a piece of academic research it is incompetent, but as a piece of opinionated and inaccurate Daily Mail style prejudice, it works its purpose well for those who are both uncritical and are already convinced (or have been convinced) that Wikipedia is a hotbed of Holocaust denying. What I am interested in is if there are people on Wikipedia now who are actively engaged in either Holocaust denying, or in deliberately distorting the truth. I think anyone found to be deliberately (and especially maliciously) distorting or misrepresenting the truth should be sanctioned. SilkTork (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not here to either defend the article or fact-check it, I merely addressed the specific claim you made at ArbCom and stated that it could've been worded better, although the essence of it is still correct, IMO. And that is, in a way, what I believe at the centre of this - whether the essence of the article is correct or not (trees, forest), which is a point I believe we (and the majority of users, I'd expect!) can agree on, judging by your last couple of sentences. I don't think a Holocaust denialist would survive for long on Wikipedia, but if the third chart in the article is to be believed, then we have a very sensitive topic in which nationalist and/or relatively marginal scholars (or both) are overrepresented in citations here when compared to the "real world", with the opposite being true for mainstream scholars. That would undoubtedly constitute a problem. Whether such an issue (if the assessment is correct) is intentional or an accidental by-product of... something (nationality of editors, linguistic competence, chance, whatever) is what I believe should be elucidated. After all, odds are the case is going to be taken up anyway. Regardless, I'm already getting in deeper than I wanted to. Cheers! Ostalgia (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)