Please add Piotrus as a party |
|||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:: I will try - I'm still adding diffs (not much text) - and after that I will trim. Can I at least assume that article names and date/time in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Evidence#Volunteer_Marek_Hounding hounding table] are not words? I could just do diff/diff ([1]/[2]) - the formatting here makes it more legible however. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 06:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
:: I will try - I'm still adding diffs (not much text) - and after that I will trim. Can I at least assume that article names and date/time in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Evidence#Volunteer_Marek_Hounding hounding table] are not words? I could just do diff/diff ([1]/[2]) - the formatting here makes it more legible however. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 06:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
* {{ping|AGK}} - I am confused by the current word count, as it doesn't match what I get from throwing the text into wordcounter.net. Do references, and quotes in refs, count as well? I put them in with full quotes to save time for whomever wants to check that the content does not match the cited source. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 05:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC) |
* {{ping|AGK}} - I am confused by the current word count, as it doesn't match what I get from throwing the text into wordcounter.net. Do references, and quotes in refs, count as well? I put them in with full quotes to save time for whomever wants to check that the content does not match the cited source. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 05:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
=== Please add Piotrus as a party === |
|||
{{ping|Bradv}}, {{ping|SQL}}, {{ping|AGK}} - While well mannered and compromising, Piotrus has been promoting dubious sources over the past two years. In recent days - (he actually presented this in his evidence, which is how I got to it) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brze%C5%9B%C4%87_Ghetto&diff=901482820&oldid=899436450][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lubart%C3%B3w_Ghetto&type=revision&diff=901489694&oldid=892476382][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cz%C4%99stochowa_Ghetto&diff=901478769&oldid=901478296] - he has been adding content sourced to pamiecitozsamosc.pl (per [http://pamiecitozsamosc.pl/o-projekcie about]: {{tq|"the result of many years of research carried out by the Lux Veritatis Foundation"}}) run by [[Lux Veritatis Foundation]] (Rydzyk), which probably counts as self-published, and is {{tq|"Lux Veritas Foundation run by the ultra-conservative and nationalistic redemptorist Tadeusz Rydzyk, infamous for his anti-Semitic enunciations"}} (from: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17504902.2019.1567660 Wóycicka, Zofia. "Global patterns, local interpretations: new polish museums dedicated to the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-25.]). Promoting such content on Wikipedia should not be acceptable. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Comments by Volunteer Marek == |
== Comments by Volunteer Marek == |
Revision as of 08:45, 18 June 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.
Comments by GizzyCatBella
Does my topic ban (details [1]) applies for posting evidence and commenting? If so, I would like to have it waived for that purposes, please. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- @GizzyCatBella: Since your topic ban is not under consideration at this case, this is not one of the valid exemptions listed at WP:BANEX. However, you are welcome to submit evidence by email to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. – bradv🍁 20:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Bradv: Thank you, I'll forward my evidence and testimony by e-mail. Best Regards GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Icewhiz
@Bradv: - can I receive a copy of this private evidence by GizzyCatBella ? I will note I considered naming GizzyCatBella as a party to the case (due to the circumstances leading to their ban, and some of their edits afterwards) - but did not in light of their already existing ban (which excludes them from much, but not all, of the topic). Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: I'll pass along this request to the committee. Regards, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes:, @Stefka Bulgaria: probably just slipped one diff to your second diff on the page, he probably should've linked diff - where you are supporting this content as
"well sourced info"
while it is actually sourced to a Tripod blog (please do read WP:UGS) and a Hungarian MoD PR release which doesn't not contain the information it is being used to source. Well sourced indeed. I do suggest Stefka correct his mistake in the diff. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Request for a word+diff extension
Can I please have a wordcount and diff extension? The hounding diffs take up many diffs. And I can't really present misrepresentations of sources without using words (generic personal-attacks / casting aspersions / etc. - can be described with great brevity, but source misuse? Unless I leave this at a totally unclear "not so", I can't see how I can point out what isn't in the source (or contradicted by the cited source) without some more words). I will try to trim and be succinct as much as possible. Thanks! Icewhiz (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Icewhiz, I would appreciate any further effort you can make to trim your evidence section. The arbitrators are going to try to use this information to establish "Findings of Facts", so an effort to be concise and clearly present facts relevant to this case would be appreciated. Thanks. – bradv🍁 21:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I will try - I'm still adding diffs (not much text) - and after that I will trim. Can I at least assume that article names and date/time in the hounding table are not words? I could just do diff/diff ([1]/[2]) - the formatting here makes it more legible however. Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @AGK: - I am confused by the current word count, as it doesn't match what I get from throwing the text into wordcounter.net. Do references, and quotes in refs, count as well? I put them in with full quotes to save time for whomever wants to check that the content does not match the cited source. Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add Piotrus as a party
@Bradv:, @SQL:, @AGK: - While well mannered and compromising, Piotrus has been promoting dubious sources over the past two years. In recent days - (he actually presented this in his evidence, which is how I got to it) - [2][3][4] - he has been adding content sourced to pamiecitozsamosc.pl (per about: "the result of many years of research carried out by the Lux Veritatis Foundation"
) run by Lux Veritatis Foundation (Rydzyk), which probably counts as self-published, and is "Lux Veritas Foundation run by the ultra-conservative and nationalistic redemptorist Tadeusz Rydzyk, infamous for his anti-Semitic enunciations"
(from: Wóycicka, Zofia. "Global patterns, local interpretations: new polish museums dedicated to the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-25.). Promoting such content on Wikipedia should not be acceptable. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Volunteer Marek
Since in accepting the case the ArbCom acknowledged that WP:AE has been unable to resolve the dispute because it is so involved and complicated I'm unclear how a 1000 word limit will do anything... that AE can't do (AE is 500). The dispute spans two years and involves long term abuse (yes, by Icewhiz), including numerous BLP violations across many articles (using Wikipedia articles to attack authors of sources who don't fit his POV). To establish this, one must show a pattern. And showing a long term pattern is going to take more than 1000 words and 100 diffs.
Additionally, since we're expect to offer rebuttals in our own sections on the evidence page, there is just no way that 1000 words is adequate. As I've said over and over again - it is much harder, and it takes a lot more words, to explain why something is a lie, than to lie in the first place.
Basically, with the present word limit, this case is likely to be just a glorified version of a WP:AE report and about as effective/competent in addressing the dispute. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, the goal of the word limits is to encourage brevity, not to create an undue burden on participants in the case or prevent evidence from being submitted. Please feel free to put together your evidence as concisely as possible, and if it needs to be shortened further we will let you know. – bradv🍁 13:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Quick question - do the rebuttals also go into our own evidence section (which will burn up the word limit and limit how much evidence we can present ourselves) or do they go somewhere else, like the Workshop? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, per the instructions at the top of the page, rebuttals go in your own section. – bradv🍁 15:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Seriously? So basically whoever makes the most attacks on another editor, and whoever makes them as hyperbolic as possible, is given the advantage here, in terms of space? And this is suppose to... help resolve disputes and reduce WP:BATTLEGROUND? Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, the idea is to reduce the back-and-forth between participants and to stick to the facts of the case (which should mostly take the form of diffs). The arbitrators are quite capable of discounting unsupported allegations on their own. – bradv🍁 15:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I hope so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Bradv: Btw Brad, as much as I disagree with how this is conducted, I do very much appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Bradv: Sorry, one more question. How do we propose adding someone to the case? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, at this point parties may only be added to the case at the discretion of the arbitrators. You may make your case here and I'll draw their attention to it, or you may email the arbitrators privately with your request. – bradv🍁 17:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Bradv: Sorry, one more question. How do we propose adding someone to the case? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, the idea is to reduce the back-and-forth between participants and to stick to the facts of the case (which should mostly take the form of diffs). The arbitrators are quite capable of discounting unsupported allegations on their own. – bradv🍁 15:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Seriously? So basically whoever makes the most attacks on another editor, and whoever makes them as hyperbolic as possible, is given the advantage here, in terms of space? And this is suppose to... help resolve disputes and reduce WP:BATTLEGROUND? Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, per the instructions at the top of the page, rebuttals go in your own section. – bradv🍁 15:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Quick question - do the rebuttals also go into our own evidence section (which will burn up the word limit and limit how much evidence we can present ourselves) or do they go somewhere else, like the Workshop? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Wait, Bradv, so can we post "analysis of Evidence" in the Workshop? Like not exactly "rebuttals" but ... "analysis" or clarifications? Also, who is User:Stefka Bulgaria and what is she doing here (afaik never seen them in this topic area before) and why is Icewhiz clarifying "what she really meant" for her? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, the "Analysis of Evidence" section is generally used by arbitrators and other participants to organize their thoughts about the evidence presented and prepare items for the workshop. It's not for rebuttals, responses, or extra evidence, and it wouldn't be appropriate to use that to get around word limits on the evidence page. As I said to Icewhiz above, presenting diffs to support establishing "Findings of Facts" relevant to this case is the stage we're in right now. – bradv🍁 21:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv AGK The Workshop page states: "The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case (...) can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others." (my emphasis). It also says "Any user may edit this workshop page" (my emphasis). The "Analysis of evidence" section has the instruction to "Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis". So it seems this is indeed like the place to discuss evidence presented by others, some of which will inevitably involve a "rebuttal". Also, there's a couple "meta" issues here, like what kind of sourcing is acceptable. Some discussion regarding these aspects is already taking place over at Paul Siebert's page (also here) (@Paul Siebert:). I think it would be good if these discussions which so far have been... at least somewhat constructive, took place in full view of the ArbCom. But since this involves lots of back and forth (not necessarily "bickering" but just a general discussion) word limits won't work here. The Workshop seems like an ideal place for such discussions (perhaps its talk page?). And I recall that this was in fact the original primary purpose of the Workshop page back in the day. I guess it got "bureaucratized" at some point, along with other parts of Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv AGK - I would also like to request an extension on the word limit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@AGK: Well, last time I had anything to do with an ArbCom case was over 10 years ago, but back then it was actually the Workshop page where most of the rebuttals of other editors' accusations would go, as "Analysis of Evidence". Which made sense since it's actually the rebuttals that burn up most of the word limit (as I've said several times already, it takes just a single sentence to accuse, it takes multiple paragraphs to explain why a particular accusation is bunk. Sheesh, I feel like I need to write a full Snopes type fact-cheking article for every "meme" -ish type accusations that others make. That would leave the space in Evidence page for actual diffs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Moved from #Comment by K.e.coffman
- Agree with K.e.coffman here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: There is a thread regarding the name of this case here. SQLQuery me! 15:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments by François Robere
- Moved from #Comments by Icewhiz
Same, unless it is posted in public later. While I'm not a party to this case, GCB and I had much back-and-forth in this area, and I'd like the chance to review her comments if they enter the record. François Robere (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bradv: Requesting a length exception for the tables I just added. I'll try to keep other commentary brief. François Robere (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- François Robere, you are at 500 words without either of the tables you have added. An extension could be granted by an arbitrator if you have additional evidence you would like to add in the form of diffs, but this does not appear to qualify. I would suggest removing both tables. – bradv🍁 23:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I can probably trim everything else to fit in 500 words, and cut the tables either to the source links (and present the analysis later) or to the conclusions (and discard the source material), but I'd rather have the full version available somewhere for the sake of transparency. It's nice hurling diffs at each other, but much of the case lies on the trends across an entire topic area over (almost) a year and a half, so a broader analysis could prove highly beneficial. François Robere (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Bradv: Everything outside the tables and attached explanations is under 500 words; including explanations, under 600 words. The tables themselves are basically just source material... François Robere (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Bradv: Recount? François Robere (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bradv: Does the committee take into account TE/SPA as part of these proceedings? François Robere (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- François Robere, I'm not sure exactly what you're after, but if there's evidence of tendentious editing that can be presented. – bradv🍁 19:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: Which is why I added the RfC analysis. It shows you how far some editors are from the consensus (which includes uninvolved editors), and by extension from DUE and NEUTRALITY. François Robere (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@SQL: Some claims have been made against me by another editor, but I'm at the word limit. Request extension. François Robere (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @François Robere:, I've passed your request on to the mailing list. We'll let you know when we hear back. SQLQuery me! 03:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Piotrus
I second VM on the word limit being too short. In particular, it prevents parties from presenting their own analysis of diffs, and makes rebuttals very difficult.
I also think GCB should be allowed to post any evidence she wishes in public. I would like to see it too, and perhaps other parties as well.
Lastly, I am unsure if the content of my current section is actually 'evidence', and I'd appreciate comment on whether it should be moved to a different arbcom page or talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the word limit now? One party has presented evidence that while not finished yet has already over 3k words. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Piotrus, the word limit remains 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties to the case, and 500 words and 50 diffs for other participants. I have asked Icewhiz to shorten their evidence section above. – bradv🍁 21:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- My very best wishes I think the connection is superficial. At most, there is some minor off wiki communication or such... shrug. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Starship.paint and Bradv I am confused about the 'rebuttals' that are supposed to be posted in evidence and whatever is supposed to go to the workshop. I'd have thought that rebuttals would be a part of workshop, not an evidence, but... I have to say that for 10+ years of history, ArbCom still hasn't evolved any friendly rules that make it easy for parties who are not ArbCom experts to figure out what to post where. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I will speak with colleagues about these word limits. I think the best approach is to apply a word limit per issue, subject to prior approval, but we will come back to you shortly. AGK ■ 08:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @AGK: As I've just reached my world limit but I feel I have more to say in another section or two I'd like to create, I'd very much appreciate some extension of a word limit. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Moved from #Comment by K.e.coffman
- Ditto, and please note that I started a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland before comments even appeared here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments by My very best wishes
- Moved from #Comments by Volunteer Marek
One of the options here is using Analysis of evidence in Workshop. I guess this is going to be used because the amount of ridiculous claims on the Evidence page is staggering. For example, user Stefka Bulgaria just posted a claim about my alleged "tag teaming" [5] and provided this diff (his #6) in support. No, I did not tag team with user ... Icewhiz by responding to his ping. Neither I tag team with anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I also support all suggestions by Piotrus just above simply because I think they are reasonable. Is that my opinion a "tag teaming"? My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz. No, I did not even read Tripod blog and I never endorsed using it. I voted this way in a community discussion because the removed information was mostly correct to my knowledge (I admit though I am not an expert). Germany did use non-German auxiliaries to occupy Poland, and the text in question mentioned well known Azeri SS Volunteer Formations. I agree (and agreed) that the text must be sourced better. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Then, in response to Stefka Bulgaria, I should say that I was never in any off-wiki communication with any participants of this case during many years. I do watch what is going on WP:AE and some other noticeboards like BLPNB and RSNB and look at pages which are mentioned in discussions. That's how I came there. My very best wishes (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- My Evidence section will be a little over 600 words, and I ask to allow it. I can not convey my message using less words. My very best wishes (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking about Analysis of Evidence, it would be a good idea to wait until the end of Evidence phase, and only then analyze it. Speaking about space limitations, I think it would be fine to allow Icewhiz to make all his points, but then it would be equally fair to allow point-by-point rebuttals with regard to specific accusations. Another possible solution would be if the Arbs said which exactly diffs they think would be "incriminating" in the "Analysis of Evidence" section and allow parties to comment. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Here is one of general problems with the Evidence. Yes, certain edits/diffs (for example, here) can be perceived by a layperson as pro/anti Polish/Jewish. However, the question we should ask is different: was certain sourced information "due" on the page per WP:NPOV, and this is just a typical "content dispute" question. Also, a lot depends on perceptions. For example, placing information that someone who was obviously a Jew (as follows from the page) was also a notable communist implicated in crimes - is it something anti-Jewish? For someone who believes in the antisemitic canard of Jewish Bolshevism the answer is definitely "yes" because that implicates Jews in crimes. However, for someone who does not believe in this canard, the answer is "no"; this is just an important sourced information about the person that must be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Everyone. Cut your Evidence, people. I think AGK was very clear about it. If you wait longer, clerk will do it for you. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with everyone about wrong/misleading name of the case. This case is not at all about antisemitism in Poland, and I did not see anything about antisemitism not only in my Evidence, but also in the evidence by others. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes: There is a thread regarding the name of this case here. SQLQuery me! 15:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I commented. But I would like to request to allow ~820 words for my statement (current size). Fortunately, I do not have more time for this and should go. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Starship.paint
I find the word limits baffling. I estimate around 1600 words being written against VM, and 2300 words being written against Icewhiz. I'm not sure how either of them can adequately defend themselves in 1000 words. It seems like the shields will run out sooner or later - then the more shots fired, the more will land. starship.paint (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The limits are not absolute and any editor may request (by post at this page) an extension to their Evidence limits. AGK ■ 08:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment by K.e.coffman
Case name
I wonder if the current case name unnecessarily limits the topic area under disputes. I feel that "Jewish-Polish relations" would cover the subject better. It also sounds more descriptive without passing a value judgement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: There is a thread regarding the name of this case here. SQLQuery me! 15:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Request to extend word limit
I would like to extend the word limit allowed on this case. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- So would I. I made a request to that effect few days ago but did not receive any indication it was noticed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)