MyMoloboaccount (talk | contribs) comment |
François Robere (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
# A new editor pops up in the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wivescoals]; seems to have working knowledge of Wikipedia and uses similar expressions to another editor - indications of a possible SOCK. |
# A new editor pops up in the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wivescoals]; seems to have working knowledge of Wikipedia and uses similar expressions to another editor - indications of a possible SOCK. |
||
[[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC) |
[[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
: Asking the Arbs to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racism_in_Poland#Molobo%27s_changes |
: Asking the Arbs to review these [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racism_in_Poland#Molobo%27s_changes][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#14_sources_for_a_single_statement] thread and advise. Molobo has been piling on PRIMARY and/or irrelevant sources on a single statement (see lead [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&oldid=910860338 here]) and evading discussion. It's getting ridiculous: after claiming [[Prussia]] was a "region in Poland" ("I am sorry that I didn't realize you didn't knew that") and asking that I enumerate my objections in the very thread I opened ''to discuss my objections'', I've posted a 15 point ''numbered list'' to which he replied with "Please could you number your statements". Molobo's conduct is clearly intended to wear out one's patience - a disruptive and provocative behavior if ever was one - that should be dealt with firmly. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 10:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
=== Reply to Molobo === |
=== Reply to Molobo === |
Revision as of 09:17, 18 August 2019
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
PD update
Owing principally to a workload arising out of WP:FRAMBAN, we are running several days behind schedule and have not yet finished drafting a proposed decision (PD). Thank you for waiting patiently. I and my colleagues are aware you are waiting and will have a decision published for voting as soon as possible. AGK ■ 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just to update everybody: We're aiming to have a PD early next week. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have asked on the mailing list if there are any updates for this case. SQLQuery me! 02:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry again, all. I think I was a tad too optimistic in my previous post, and worse, didn't come back to point that out when it became obvious. I don't think I have a specific time frame but the drafters might. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Follow up by MJL
Any word on how this motion will effect this case? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: own section, please. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments by François Robere
Are the Arbs taking note of ongoing affairs in the topic area? In the past week we've had:
- Editors attempt to exclude antisemitism (or some expressions thereof) and Islamophobia from Racism in Poland ([1][2][3][4]), shifting the focus of Racism in Poland from minorities to the Polish majority.
- Editors attempt to censor RS-backed statements that compare antisemitism and Islamophobia in Islamophobia in Poland.
- One editor inserting a whole pile of PRIMARY, cherry-picked or otherwise misrepresented sources in Racism in Poland [5].
- Same editor violates BLP and SYNTH in an attempt to discredit Jan T. Gross. They're backed by other editors [6][7][8], who then copy the offending content to Golden Harvest (book).
- Editors reject consensus of a move discussion in a push to retitle sections in Jewish ghettos in Europe [9].
- A new editor pops up in the discussion [10]; seems to have working knowledge of Wikipedia and uses similar expressions to another editor - indications of a possible SOCK.
François Robere (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Asking the Arbs to review these [11][12] thread and advise. Molobo has been piling on PRIMARY and/or irrelevant sources on a single statement (see lead here) and evading discussion. It's getting ridiculous: after claiming Prussia was a "region in Poland" ("I am sorry that I didn't realize you didn't knew that") and asking that I enumerate my objections in the very thread I opened to discuss my objections, I've posted a 15 point numbered list to which he replied with "Please could you number your statements". Molobo's conduct is clearly intended to wear out one's patience - a disruptive and provocative behavior if ever was one - that should be dealt with firmly. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Reply to Molobo
- There was no "wholesale deletion of information on Nazi atrocities". Those are the bad sources I mentioned in §3, which the Arbs are welcome to examine themselves. Molobo has been mentioned in this case by both Ealdgyth and myself; this is an example why.
- The admins are also welcome to examine my alternative formulation,[13] which mirrors what we've achieved at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Background after a lengthy discussion; it reflects the general consensus in the field, and does not in any way understate any nation's suffering. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Reply to VM
- You'll notice I'm not actually defending that specific inclusion anywhere; rather, I object to the wholesale trimming of anything that seems even mildly offensive to some of the other editors, which is why I continue supporting reverting to an older revision, of which that 13th cen. reference happens to be part, as a baseline from which we can discuss everything else. However, I did provide a quote in NPOVN from George M. Fredrickson's Racism: A Short History, which ties all of it together. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment by MyMoloboaccount
Unfortunately since the case has happened there has been continued escalation of borderline flaming attempts and repeated behavior described in the case like attempts to minimize Nazi atrocities towards Polish population while overemphasizing antisemitism in Poland
- Wholesale deletion of information on Nazi atrocities and racist policy of Nazis in Poland[14]
- Naming genocide of Poles "limited action" by Germans, and writing that when describing Poland in WW and writing about Polish victims of Nazi Germany "Poles should appear last"[15]
- Describing genocide of Poles in punctuation marks as Polish "genocide" [16]
- Claims by Icewhiz that stating Poland was occupied by Nazis is Stressing the occupation is redundant, and is aligned with a particular POV[17]
Icewhiz ignored question what POV does it represent to state that Poland was occupied by Nazis.
- Describing (in context of World War 2 Nazi racist atrocities) the Holocaust as mainly German(excluding Polish role), which subtly tries to impose it as German-Polish undertaking, and that racism was the doing of the church[18]
This sadly paints a picture where Nazi atrocities are being removed or denied as soon as they are concerning Poles and where Holocaust is being described as some German-Polish operation.The OR goes even further to the point where 13th century Poland has been described as racist state motivated by racial ideology rather than religious strife[19](note that NONE of the sources used by Icewhiz claim the conflict in 13th was motivated by racist ideology of thought rather than religion). --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- The first case is about editors trying to claim Original Research that Poland in 13th was engaged in racist persecution of Jews.Which is simply absurd, there was religious strife for sure, but racism wasn't the motivation for these actions and conflicts, just like Crusades were motivated by religion rather than racism.Nobody pushed for removal of sourced information about racism in 19th or 20th century, just against bizarre claims not supported by any sources.
- One editor inserting a whole pile of PRIMARY, cherry-picked or otherwise misrepresented sources in Racism in Poland [20].
Simply untrue, scholarly and expert sources have been added about Nazi atrocities in Poland against Polish population. In return FR has started denying that Nazis genocided Polish population and engaged in mass deletion of sources and infromation about Nazi racist policies in Poland such as War and Genocide: Essays in Honour of Jeremy Noakes Jeremy Noakes, Neil Gregory University of Exeter Press, 2005(that stated In 1942 Nazi racial discrimination was enshrined in Decree on Penal Law for Poles and Jews) and others[21]. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Reply to Icewhiz
- Anti-Polish as a word is hardly equal to antisemitism, for example read
- Carolyn Slutsky, “March of the Living: Confronting Anti-Polish Stereotypes,” in Robert Cherry and Annamaria Orla-Bukowska (eds), Rethinking Poles and Jews:Troubled Past, Brighter Future
- or author who you were using and are fond of Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the the Present
Joanna B. Michlic Therefore I also reject the perspective that equates postwar anti-Polish stereotyping by Jews with the anti-Jewish idioms What I would indeed find toxic, is constant comparisons of Poland to Nazi Germany, inability to engage in dialogoue with numerous successive Polish editors, creating attack pages,deleting any information stating otherwise,and inability to interpret and frame intereactions and portayal of Poland in any other context besides racist antisemitism. As the English proverb states: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Volunteer Marek
Re: Francois Robere's claims and MyMoloboaccount's comments (added after comment was moved):
The first one is not even about whether 13th century persecution of Jews was racial or religious. It's about the fact that what was a European-wide phenomenon is being ascribed to 13th century Poland as if it was unique. Icewhiz and FR are actually trying to blame Poland for the anti-semitic policies of the Lateran Council. In case anyone is confused, the Lateran is in Rome, the pope was an Italian, and the council was composed primarily of Frankish and Italian bishops from the Holy Roman Empire, and Poland didn't have diddly squat to do with it. Needless to say, the sources being used (and misrepresented) do not support the edits being pushed. It's just some weird obsession here, with cramming as much negative info into articles on Poland as possible, even if that info is false and not supported by sources. It's gotten REALLY tiresome. Like two years ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
And it is a complete falsehood that "editors rejected the consensus of a RM discussion". That is a dishonest and disingenuous way of describing the dispute. NOBODY tried to undo any article names or move. Instead, Icewhiz basically claimed that because the name "Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" was rejected in favor of simply "Holocaust in Poland" (which is reasonable per WP:MOS) that gave him a carte blanche to go through out Wikipedia and remove the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2 wherever he liked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz
- Re #1 As already explained, the first sentence of this text is NOT in the source. And there's NOTHING in that source about "setting up ghettos". Yes, the Catholic Church in Europe in the 13th century sought to separate Christians and Jews by putting Jews in ghettos. And these attempts - instituted by the Lateran Council in Rome - applied to Poland. However, there's NOTHING in the source about "placing Polish Jews in ghettos in 1266". The Church said one thing, the nobility and the dukes did another. Indeed, another source that was brought up implies that the first ghettos in Poland appeared only in the 16th century, three hundred years later. This is a misrepresentation of sources.
- Re #2 As already explained, there is NO "circumventing consensus for title". Nobody wants to change the outcome of the RM with regard to the article's title. What multiple editors are objecting to is Icewhiz (and FR) going through a significant number of articles and removing the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2. Well, that, and the misleading, disingenuous and tendentious claims that the outcome of the RM is some kind of carte blanche to remove the fact of the occupation anywhere Icewhiz sees fit. Or for that matter, Icewhiz obnoxiously referring to the fact of German occupation as just a "particular POV". The whole WP:MOS thing was cooked up by Icewhiz after the first lame excuse fell through.
- Re #3 Again, there is no "POV pushing" unless one sincerely believes that the fact that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2 is a "particular POV". This is, needless to say, an extremist, fring and historically false assertion. I'm also not clear on how someone's statements on twitter are relevant here. "German occupied Poland" is actually the standard phrase used in the literature. For example by Timothy Snyder [22] (not a "Polish nationalist" (sic)) or by the US Holocaust Museum (also not "Polish nationalists") [23] [24], Israeli academics (also not "Polish nationalists") and the Scientific American (also not "Polish nationalists") [25], press agencies such as Reuters (also not "Polish nationalists") [26], prominent historians such as Martin Gilbert (also not a "Polish nationalist") (pgs 42, 47, 62 etc etc etc) and Joshua Zimmerman [27] (also not a "Polish nationalist") and so on and so forth. Hell, even Icewhiz's favorite author Jan Grabowski, that Icewhiz has tried to spam into as many articles about Poland as possible (because Grabowski's writings are so negative about Poles in WW2) uses the term: Betrayal and Murder in German-occupied Poland. Needless to say Grabowski is also not a "Polish nationalist". Basically, one of Icewhiz's tactics is to try and label anything that doesn't fit in with his fringe and extremist POV as "Polish nationalism"... even when it's something widely accepted among historians; Polish, Israeli, American, etc. This only illustrates that the WP:AGENDA Icewhiz is pursuing here and the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusade he's been on for the past two+ years is way out of the mainstream.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
And I'm sorry, but disagreements about how WP:MOS should be applied are NOT usually "actionable unless an ArbCom case is open". That's absurd. I've never seen that. This is hyperbolic attempt to deflect from the fact that Icewhiz got caught inserting false information into an article with fake sourcing [28] and I brought up the fact that THIS kind of behavior is ... usually very actionable. He's attempting to project. "I got caught doing something bad so I must quickly make up as many accusations as I can against the other party to change the topic!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz's newest - a detailed explanation with multiple sources is NOT a "tirade". This is just more of the same from Icewhiz. Likewise Icewhiz's disingenous "it's unfortunate" (oh yeah, sure) "that VM disagrees..." NO. I simply provided multiple reliable sources which illustrate just how fringe Icewhiz's views are and how WP:TENDENTIOUS it is for him to try to smear anyone who disagrees with him as a "Polish nationalist". According to Icewhiz that label apparently applies to American and Israeli historians (and Polish ones) as well as the US Holocaust Museum and the Yad Vashem institute. Wait wait wait... let me try this... Ahem. *Clears throat*...
It is unfortunate that Icewhiz disagrees with the US Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem Institute, Timothy Snyder, Joshua Zimmerman and even Jan Grabowski,
See? Phony "civility" is easy. But that doesn't change that this is a case of WP:CPUSHing fringe views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Icewhiz
In regards to VM's comments above:
- The content is question is on placing Polish Jews in ghettos in 1266 (applying a prior (1215) Vatican council decision in Poland) - the source is on Poland:
"It is not known how many Jew had established residence in Poland in the thirteenth century. That there were enough of them (it wouldn't have taken many) in the old Polish diocese, that of Gnizeno (Gnesen), to worry the Church fathers is evident from the following clause in canonical law as imposed by the Church Council of Breslau in 1266...
. VM and MyMoloboaccount are seriously arguing to exclude placing Polish Jews in separate ghettos - in Poland - from racism in Poland. - RM discussion on title of The Holocaust in Poland. VM circumventing consensus for title in links to that article (+violating MOS:SECTIONSTYLE(point-2) for section headers (sub-header under header containing "Poland" or article containing "Poland")): diff, diff (note edit summary:
"simpler is not always better if it's less informative. RfC about naming of a particular article irrelevant"
), diff, diff. This action (changing links, including see-also links, to correspond to title rejected by RM) by VM would've been actionable by itself had this ARBCOM not been open. - In regards to the POV-pushing involved in circumventing the RM decision (+MOS:SECTIONSTYLE) - I refer to Dr. Waitman W. Beorn (Holocaust historian at The University of Virginia) - [29] - who explains the Polish push to use clunky terms such as
"German Nazi-occupied Poland"
as caused by"current trends in conservative Polish nationalism. In order to highlight what right wing Poles see as unrecognized Polish suffering (3 million non-Jewish Poles were murdered by the Nazis), it is important to minimize other suffering"
. Beorn also refers to this as a "naming crusade", and provides ample examples of Polish nationalist discourse in this context.
Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- In regards to the tirade above -
"Icewhiz's tactics is to try and label..."
- I was quoting Dr. Waitman W. Beorn (Holocaust historian at The University of Virginia) who wrote on this topic. It is unfortunate VM disagrees with Dr. Beorn. Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Temporary interaction ban
@AGK: - the hounding, harrassment, bullying, and name calling has been entirely one sided here. The sole place I have made comments on Volunteer Marek have been pages related to this case page - and these have been politely framed. I want to point out to ARBCOM that VM's issues extend well past Polish Jews (whom VM stated, here in ARBCOM, should not be labelled by Wikipedia as Polish in Wikipedia's lead) - but also to Islamophobia in Poland and LGBT-free zone where his disruption and arguing against mainstream high quality sources is clearly WP:NOTTHERE (beyond "just" hounding and bullying). That ARBCOM sees fit to consider sanctioning the victim of a relentless hounding campaign (which continued during these proceedidngs) speaks volumes. That diff from 15 August - which included the dergatory and racial based "anti-Polish":
For the advocates of the national-Catholic outlook the concept of anti-Polonism is much clearer than that of antisemitism. It has been present in the Polish public discourse since the late 1960s. It has even earned a definition: “external or internal actions aimed at the destruction of the Polish state and nation, hostility towards Poland and Poles, use of lies and insinuations calculated to blacken the image of the nation”. In the popular usage the anti-Polonism is limited almost exclusively to the alleged ‘anti-Polish machinations’ on the part of Jews.
[30] To further frame the context - "anti-Polish" was the label applied to Polish Jews in 1968 as the Polish government expelled almost every remaining Jew in Poland (some 100,000):
"Zionists to Zion," people yelled at party conventions, the aim being to send the country's Jews — regarded as anti-Polish — to Israel.
[31] That this threatening language that does not result in an immediate site ban speaks volumes to the health of this community in responding to highly toxic behavior.Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments by {your user name}
About
a month late, the drafters are yet to specify any approximate timeline for posting the PD, parties are back to waging the same battles even over here ..... ∯WBGconverse 12:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I know...
...that there are major, important distractions that the Committee must deal with, but really, over a month late for the PD seems like it should be a wake-up call for the drafting Arbs, @AGK: and @Worm That Turned:. Can the community and the participants at the very least get a realistic idea of when the PD can be expected? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I'm aware, we're significantly late. We initially had 3 drafters on this case, but one has left the committee, and I have moved over to taking point on the Fram case. This leaves a single arbitrator to manage one of the most complex / content heavy cases we've had in a little while. We probably could have suspended the case, while we dealt with the one that was at a higher priority to the community as a whole, but we chose not to, leading to one of our longest delays in recent years.
- I will say that having looked at the drafting process, the vast majority is written, only a couple more findings need to be done. I don't have a specific date for you, but I will tentatively say "soon". @AGK: is that a fair assessment? WormTT(talk) 09:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)