Tags: Reverted Reply |
Gitz6666, you are still not a party; please start using the correct section for your replies Tag: Undo |
||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
:::::[[WP:ICA]] {{tq|(d) lying}} (see also [[WP:LIE]]). Since you're an experienced editor and you know Gross's book very well, you also know perfectly well that in the edit you reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jedwabne_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1143854620&diffmode=source] there was nothing that qualifies as [[WP:OR]]. The reasons I provided for that edit may be good or bad, you can think differently and provide counterarguments, but you cannot claim that removing Gross's quotation because it's selective and misleading is an "original research", or is based on an OR, on my part. That is deceptive and beyond AGF. If you claim that something is OR, you must be able to identify which content is not supported by RS and is thus "innovative"/OR. Per [[WP:ICA]] {{tq|(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't say}} applies to you mentioning the "own initiative"/"own free will" distinction to justify your revert in the edit summary and t/p: none of my edits were reporting that, according to Gross, the Poles took the initiative. Again, this was misleading and deceptive on your part. Note that I immediately reacted to your revert with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJedwabne_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1144219479&diffmode=source this comment] (see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJedwabne_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1144220732&diffmode=source this question]), so you can't say that I'm making it up now just to get you into trouble. Rightly or wrongly, I immediately perceived your revert and the underying reasons as problematic, and you could then have rectified what you had said, but you choose not to reply. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 11:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
:::::[[WP:ICA]] {{tq|(d) lying}} (see also [[WP:LIE]]). Since you're an experienced editor and you know Gross's book very well, you also know perfectly well that in the edit you reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jedwabne_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1143854620&diffmode=source] there was nothing that qualifies as [[WP:OR]]. The reasons I provided for that edit may be good or bad, you can think differently and provide counterarguments, but you cannot claim that removing Gross's quotation because it's selective and misleading is an "original research", or is based on an OR, on my part. That is deceptive and beyond AGF. If you claim that something is OR, you must be able to identify which content is not supported by RS and is thus "innovative"/OR. Per [[WP:ICA]] {{tq|(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't say}} applies to you mentioning the "own initiative"/"own free will" distinction to justify your revert in the edit summary and t/p: none of my edits were reporting that, according to Gross, the Poles took the initiative. Again, this was misleading and deceptive on your part. Note that I immediately reacted to your revert with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJedwabne_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1144219479&diffmode=source this comment] (see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJedwabne_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1144220732&diffmode=source this question]), so you can't say that I'm making it up now just to get you into trouble. Rightly or wrongly, I immediately perceived your revert and the underying reasons as problematic, and you could then have rectified what you had said, but you choose not to reply. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 11:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::Wait, Gitz6666 are you accusing me of "lying"? In a comment where you are accusing *me* of "incivility"?<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 16:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
::::::Wait, Gitz6666 are you accusing me of "lying"? In a comment where you are accusing *me* of "incivility"?<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 16:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::I'm explaining to you, as you asked me to do, why I think your behaviour was uncivil. If you say to a fellow editor that they are making an OR, and you cannot point to their content that is not supported by a RS, either there's a WP:COMPETENCE issue (you don't know what "OR" means) or WP:CIVIL, TENDENTIOUS issue (you know what OR means, but you decide to deceive). I trust your competence but I doubt your civility. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 17:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
Revision as of 17:49, 18 March 2023
Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)
Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023
Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk), Firefly (Talk), MJL (Talk), ToBeFree (Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk), Primefac (Talk), Wugapodes (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of analysis
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Analysis exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post their analysis and interpretations of submitted evidence.
Expected standards of behavior
- 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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
- Analysis that includes accusations of misbehaviour case must be refer to summarized evidence (and otherwise not made at all).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
- Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
- Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
- Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
- Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of summarized evidence (with diff or paragraph number) and detailed analysis
Adoring nanny analysis
- Evidence
- Analysis
The article Naliboki massacre was vastly improved by a recent series of edits by editors with different points of view. Version as of mid February[1]. Current version (March 13)[2]. The old version was borderline antisemitic. I don't see such issues with the current version, though others may differ. The old version left the question of the participation of Jewish partisans a bit mysterious, with a few hints of yes, and somewhat-stronger hints of no. The current version makes it clear that the allegation is unproven at best and probably false. The old version contained useless info about a commission not having completed its work as of years ago. The new version summarizes what they did. The collaboration was required. For example, I certainly could not have done it on my own as I don't speak Polish.
That said, the differing points of view of the various editors, much of which involves issues I don't understand, is severe enough that it resulted in an AE thread[3] with some mild sanctions. Certainly some people were less than happy with each other. I do wish everyone would calm down. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of El C's evidence
- Evidence
- Analysis
The above are just recent things that I noticed in passing (thus, I believe these are illustrative examples), but that this is how VM and GCB conduct themselves while an APL2 case is pending, I think is indicative of their unsuitability for continuing to edit the topic area/s. Therefore, I submit that their previous indef TBANS should be reinstated by ArbCom at the conclusion of this case. El_C 00:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- @GCB: if what you got from the above is that I propose for you to be
Topic Banned for not removing diffs [etc.]
, then you have failed to read closely. But a terse one liner reply to my in-depth explanation is about par for the course. Anyway, for some reason, you were treated with exceptional leniency. You got an edge over others in that thread by violating the rules and then ended up getting your diff-filibustering violation retained. That is not a plus. Again, I emphasize: something that I ran into in passing. I strongly believe that this example is illustrative of an overall approach. It being WP:BATTLEGROUND, even when in a roundabout way. El_C 04:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC) - Comment by Arbitrators:
- In regards to the information that El C revision deleted, there is ample evidence which is either oversighted or off-wiki ,that Icewhiz did exactly what Volunteer Marek said. Obviously El C can't verify that and so I completely understand the use of RD under our BLP policy, but make no mistake that there has been real and vile harassment by Icewhiz. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- @User:El_C - No, I don't believe I should be Topic Banned for not removing diffs after being permitted to keep them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- ----
- I wasn’t aware that WP:BLPCRIME applies to anonymous former Wikipedia accounts that are engaged in harassment. It doesn’t. And El_C is mistaken. My language wasn’t “shocking”. I did not use expletives, profanity or even any adjectives. What IS shocking however, and what El_C should be shocked by, is the form of abuse and harassment that Icewhiz engaged in which is what my revdel’d comment summarized. That is what El_C is reacting to, but it is what really happened. I don’t know why El_C chose to focus on the person describing the abuse, rather than the abuse itself.
- Abusive accounts get reported to ANI/AN all the time, complete with descriptions of their abuse. That isn’t WP:BLPCRIME either.
- This brings up a broader point. The 2019 and 2020 ArbComs are well aware of the kind of abuse that Icewhiz did. I don’t know if the present ArbCom is. Certainly, there are editors on Wikipedia who are commenting on this subject who don’t appear to know much.
- There is also a social norm, both on Wikipedia and outside, that individuals subject to abuse and harassment, especially this vile kind of harassment, are expected not to talk about it… much. It’s ugly stuff. It’s in bad taste. Bringing it up makes people uncomfortable. You have my sympathies, now let’s change the subject. Talk about something else. If you talk about it you risk some other nut case out there getting ideas. Let’s just move on. Etc.
- But what this often leads to is just facilitating more abuse. There are still people on Wikipedia – and Grabowski and Klein do this as well – who really want to downplay what Icewhiz did. And pretend that Icewhiz was “unfairly banned”. All he did is just some vanilla socking with a little of slight doxing on the side. Poor guy got railroaded for some minor misdemeanors. But nobody gets site-banned by the WMF and Trust and Safety for just a bit of socking and doxing.
- So if you do bring it up you get accused of having a “persecution” complex and having a sense of “martyrdom” (actual taunt from Horse Eye’s Back here). Or you’re told to stop brining up Icewhiz because you know, he’s not relevant here or something: [4]. Being quiet about it means making this kind of chicanery possible.
- El_C's "evidence" means that I really don't have much of a choice anymore. Pretty clearly it’s necessary to really spell out what Icewhiz did. That too should be part of evidence. Ignoring this means ignoring crucial context here, ignoring all the stuff that's happened in the past four years. And when you’re at a point where an administrator thinks that referring to the abuse is “BLPCRIME” it really seems that the nature of this abuse needs to be said out loud. So that some people will stop pretending that what Icewhiz did wasn’t a big deal and that people who bring it up are just “playing the victim”. Or even try to get me sanctioned for talking about it, as it seems to be El_C’s intention here. Just shut up and take it and don’t talk about it…
- … right. In fact I would rather NOT talk about it. Even just thinking about it makes me very emotional, angry and even scared. But El_C’s comment is perfect illustration why it HAS TO be talked about. Icewhiz posted very very detailed information on my children. Including their names, school address, birthdays and even a nickname. A few days later accounts appeared on Wikipedia made under the names of my children (and other family members). These accounts began making edits to articles about rape. When that didn’t get my attention, they made the rape threats more explicitly. Of course, all this was oversighted and the accounts banned (hence no diffs for this section). But the evidence was forwarded to ArbCom and Trust and Safety.
- Was that Icewhiz or some other random psycho? Does it matter? Icewhiz was the one who posted all that info about my kids. Even if it wasn’t him personally, he made it possible and this was exactly his intent. When confronted about it on twitter he gloated and said that I “deserved it”. He also refused to deny that it was him in discussion on Wikipediocracy. After all, if you’re threatening somebody, you want them to know that it’s you.
- I don’t know who here, reading this, has kids, but I hope that you can relate. How would YOU feel if someone threatened to rape your kids? What would you think of the person that either did it or encouraged/facilitated it? How would you view the people who made excuses for this person, or downplayed what he did, or worse, continued to tag-team with his sock puppets, or exchanged emails with this person and posted on their behalf, or wrote a paper based on this person’s false accusations?
- And it seems that me having the nerve to describe what happened leads El_C to think that I should be topic banned! Just shut up, take it, don’t talk about it. Or you get topic banned. Even if I haven’t really been editing this area for the past year.
- Note that I haven't even addressed the other stuff Icewhiz did: the sock puppeting (including impersonating real life people), somebody calling me at work self identifying as Icewhiz and telling me that if I "wanted to live" I "better stop editing Wikipedia", all the other forms of harassment.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 16:15, March 15, 2023 (UTC)
- With regard to GCB, I did not see anything she did recently that would rise to the level requiring any serious sanctions. I saw her comments on ANI where she insisted that the dispute needs to be brought to AE. If anything, that was an AE case "with merit" because some sanctions were made, and no one disputed these sanctions. Hence, GizzyCatBella arguably did good thing for the project by advising to bring this case to AE.
- This is diff to a comment by Gitz6666 that caused the redacted reply by VM: [5]. In this edit Gitz666 refers to discussions off-wiki I have no idea about. In the end of their comment (diff above) Gitz6666 refers to this discussion. I am not sure if such reference was a topic ban violation by Gitz6666, but I think Gitz6666 explains why he is so happy to see VM in trouble during this arbitration. Based on the angry reaction by VM, Gitz6666 knew what he was doing. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Above, VM writes:
I wasn’t aware that WP:BLPCRIME applies to anonymous former Wikipedia accounts that are engaged in harassment. It doesn’t. And El_C is mistaken.
Yes, it does apply—to any living or recently-deceased person whatsoever, anywhere on the project—and no I am not mistaken. You speak with such confidence about things you obviously have a poor grasp of. To quote Barkeep's reply to myself at the evidence talk page earlier today:I think your interpretation of our BLP policy is correct and the idea that it only applies to article topics is at odds with the policy
(17:12, 15 March 2023) El_C 07:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Below it is written:
The redacted part would have to be very, very bad for ArbCom to base a TBAN on it
(18:32, 16 March 2023). Earlier today I had said (in part):This piece of evidence is not the sole basis for my calling for
[VM's]previous EE TBAN to be reinstated
(14:29, 16 March 2023). El_C 23:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Below it is written:
- Comment by others:
- The issue for ArbCom raised by this evidence is whether or not VM and GCB have done things that should result in reinstatement of their TBANS. I've looked at the evidence regarding VM. I can't see the part that was redacted. For what I can see, including what VM says in this section of the case page, as well as what I can see at Gitz6666's talk page, it looks to me like someone who has been the victim of serious harassment commenting about that harassment, rather than engaging in disruptive conduct. The redacted part would have to be very, very bad for ArbCom to base a TBAN on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- what a peculiar interpretation by MVBW. I had to re-read this comment three times to understand its intended meaning.
- I made no reference to discussions off-wiki (with VM or others): I had no such discussion.
- At the end of my comment, I'm not referring to the whole discussion linked by MVBW. I'm referring to the link I shared (obviously...) and thus to VM's comment
Explain to me why I should bother past your first two and a half sentences
, which was rather rude, as VM acknowledged. that is why I am so happy to comment about you and Iceweitz here right now
This sentence is incomprehensible to me; I don't understand why MVBW thinks I was happy to comment on VM and Icewhitz. What I said is that I was happy to have resisted the tentation to dismiss VM's wall of text as he had done with me in the past. Instead of dismissing VM, I replied to him. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just to note that MVBW's comment has been edited after my reply [6], which is a bit annoying because now my point 3 no longer makes sense and I would have to write a new comment to reply to the new wording of his old comment (I'd be
happy to see VM in trouble
- which I avoid doing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Analysis of evidence provided by Ealdgyth and Wugapodes comments
- Evidence
- Analysis
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- @Volunteer Marek: (1) Ealdgyth did strike part of her evidence in response to your talk page message, but she also added more in response which is not struck. That summary relied on her statements:
Nothing in either source supports the first phrase "Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence" [...] and the next part is also not clearly related to the previous thoughts - are these fugitives ... fugitives from the ghettos? Or fugitives who fled to the Soviet Union? The last part is again, not supported by either of the sources given - neither source talks about fugitives vs. non-fugitive survival rates... so ... what's this supposed to be sourced to or discussing?
I haven't gotten around to actually looking at the sources, and a single sentence out of context isn't really enough for me to decide that your reading of the sentence is unambiguously correct. I've updated the summary to say "might not" to make clear the factual ambiguity that still needs resolved.(2) Buidhe's objection was that it was an opinion stated in our voice, but Ealdgyth's objection, present in the evidence I was summarizing, is whether the claims were adequately supported. I appreciate the talk page link; as I said I hadn't read through it, just looked to see where it could be found so that I can read it later. I've updated the summary to better distinguish between Buidhe's concerns then and Ealdgyth's concerns now.(3) If your edit summary refers to a previous edit summary, I'm going to look at that previous edit summary so I can understand the first one. To do that, I need to open the edit history, and the first thing that appears on the page is a second revert. If you don't want me poking around the edit history, don't use edit summaries that make me go poking around the edit history. As to the summary specifically, in order to understand what it is you were saying in that diff Ealdgyth links, I need to quote your previous edit summaries to figure out what "ditto" meant. So there's 3 of the 6 extra. Ealdgyth also cited that as being the what added the claim, and in order to summarize where the claim came from, I need to look at the back and forth reverts as part of why it stayed.(4) We have, from the beginning, indicated that we would be asking participants for evidence pertaining to specific questions so that we can get a more complete view of the situation. That was originally to be done after Phase 1 of evidence, but given what we've received we've decided to move that timeline up similar to how we opened this analysis page earlier than originally planned. As such, /Questions was created, and I have moved my request for further evidence there. — Wug·a·po·des 02:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: (1) Ealdgyth did strike part of her evidence in response to your talk page message, but she also added more in response which is not struck. That summary relied on her statements:
- Comment by parties:
- User:Wugapodes - Regarding this sentence "Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence, the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high and by far, the individuals who circumvented deportation were the most successful." - it is indeed supported by sources, as I pointed out to Ealdgyth (which is why she presumably struck her initial comment) here. The quote from Paulsson is:
It was only those Jews who escaped whose fate was in the hands of the Polish population, and, as we have seen, the rate of survival among these Jews was relatively high, despite adverse conditions.
(pg. 35) - "escaped" --> "circumvented deportation".
- "adverse conditions" --> "severity of the German measures". Arguably "adverse conditions" included other things but the article itself is explicit that it was not due to Polish actions.
- "rate of survival among these Jews was relatively high" --> "the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high"
- This is just basic paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism/copyvio, but it simply cannot be argued that the sentence is not supported by the source.
- Indeed, the objection raised to this quote was NOT that it was not supported by sources. It was that it was in Wikivoice. I suggested that it be attributed [7] which would solve that problem. But rather than keeping it in and attributing it, it was reverted.
- Also, pardon me but I'm a little bit confused.
- Ealdgyth presents two diffs [8] [9]. You present ... eight. You can't summarize two things with eight others. This isn't a summary but rather analysis. It looks more like you're actually presenting evidence yourself rather than arbitratin'. Your "Wug notes" also makes it sound like you're soliciting particular kind of evidence having not received it so far which also seems to over step some roles here.
- Can you please separate out your comment into the part which is an actual summary of Ealdgyth's evidence and the part which is your own analysis?
- Also, probably important to note that this is stuff from January 2021, or more than two years ago. As far as I'm concerned (I don't know about buidhe) this is water under the bridge. Volunteer Marek 23:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- User:Wugapodes - thank you for adding that "might not". If you need a copy of the source please let me know. Re (3) - I have no objection to poking around, it's just that is "analysis" not "summary". That was my only point here. Re (4) - I'm kind of uncomfortable with this. The "moving up of the time table". This stuff is time consuming and I'm not posting everything all at once. I'm also busy in real life so I have to allocate my time ahead of schedule. But now the schedule is being changed? Ugh. Volunteer Marek 02:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- User:Wugapodes - Regarding this sentence "Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence, the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high and by far, the individuals who circumvented deportation were the most successful." - it is indeed supported by sources, as I pointed out to Ealdgyth (which is why she presumably struck her initial comment) here. The quote from Paulsson is:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of Evidence presented by Gitz
- Evidence
- Analysis
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Regarding Gitz666's evidence:
- 1. Saying that someone's addition of text is "original research" is NOT incivil. It is standard discussion on Wikipedia. Same goes for "fairly inaccurate reading (of the source)". My comments address content, not editors. How else is one suppose to say "this is OR" on Wikipedia? Calling that "tendentious" ... is kind of tendentious itself. I'm starting to notice this pattern where any disagreement is automatically being labeled as "tendentious" or "stonewalling" or such in order to dismiss it or to produce "diffs" against people with some kind of strange alchemy. But disagreements happen and disagreeing is not sanctionable.
- 2. "of own free will" and "on the initiative" are indeed two different things. It's simply the difference between "To start something" and "To participate in something". And this is actually the main contention in this broader dispute (nobody disagrees that Poles participated in the pogrom, what's disputed is whether they or the Germans initiated it), hence accuracy is needed.
- 3. Gitz666's reading is NOT "everybody's reading". This is simply an assertion by Gitz.
- 4. In particular *I* am not "omitting" anything. I am *restoring* the first part of Gitz's statement (that "Germans had total control of the area"). The fact that Poles perpetuated the pogrom is NOT being removed, it is stated throughout the entire article
5. Strangely, in this comment Gitz6666 addresses these very same edits and do not describe them as uncivil or tendentious. In fact, they appear to view them as just routine disagreement. Yet now Gitz is including these edits in evidence and trying to present them in an entirely different light.- 6. On Gitz's talk page I pointed out how "gotcha" diffs work [10] by using Gitz's own edit where Gitz included the false information in an article that the Blue Police were "Jewish collaborators" (they were Polish). HOAX! It's this kind of "gotcha" approach that has created this whole battleground in the first place. Unfortunately Gitz has not seemed to have appreciated my example as he's trying to do exactly that kind of thing right here.
- 7. Gitz6666 has recently been topic-banned by User:Callanecc from Russia-Ukraine topics [11] for ... tendentious edits and battleground behavior. This was a result of an ongoing dispute between myself, User:Elinruby and Gitz in that topic area. When this G&K paper came out a few weeks later, Gitz jumped into editing this topic area. At the time I expressed the sincere hope that he wasn't doing this just to stalk me and try to get payback for his topic ban. Gitz showing up here with this... really weak, stretched evidence... unfortunately makes me think that my initial fear might have been correct. Volunteer Marek 01:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding point 1, I agree that saying that someone's addition of text is "original research" per se is not incivil. It may be incivil, however, if you cannot answer the following question: which part of my two contentious edits (the first one or the second one, that you reverted) is an OR, meaning that it adds material not supported by RS? Nothing in my edits remotely resembles OR.
- Regarding point 5, you are wrong, because the diff you shared is of the 5 March, while your revert at Jedwabne pogrom was made on the 12 March. In that conversation we had on the 5 March, I was referring to your reverts of my edits at Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, some of which were questionable, but not problematic (tendentious/uncivil). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
It is uncivil, however, if you cannot answer the following question
- I don't think that's what "uncivil" means. I also don't understand this question which you, just now, posed and which afaik you haven't posed before. It's obviously the second one. I did not revert your first one or refer to it or discuss it and you did not include it in your evidence. Are you perchance confusing me with the other editor who was disagreeing with you? Since the answer should be obvious and you haven't asked it before I am left wondering how this question can serve as a criteria for whether my calling of your edit "original research" was "uncivil" or not. Volunteer Marek 03:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)- WP:ICA
(d) lying
(see also WP:LIE). Since you're an experienced editor and you know Gross's book very well, you also know perfectly well that in the edit you reverted [12] there was nothing that qualifies as WP:OR. The reasons I provided for that edit may be good or bad, you can think differently and provide counterarguments, but you cannot claim that removing Gross's quotation because it's selective and misleading is an "original research", or is based on an OR, on my part. That is deceptive and beyond AGF. If you claim that something is OR, you must be able to identify which content is not supported by RS and is thus "innovative"/OR. Per WP:ICA(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't say
applies to you mentioning the "own initiative"/"own free will" distinction to justify your revert in the edit summary and t/p: none of my edits were reporting that, according to Gross, the Poles took the initiative. Again, this was misleading and deceptive on your part. Note that I immediately reacted to your revert with this comment (see also this question), so you can't say that I'm making it up now just to get you into trouble. Rightly or wrongly, I immediately perceived your revert and the underying reasons as problematic, and you could then have rectified what you had said, but you choose not to reply. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)- Wait, Gitz6666 are you accusing me of "lying"? In a comment where you are accusing *me* of "incivility"? Volunteer Marek 16:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- WP:ICA
- Comment by others:
The Forgotten Holocaust
- Evidence
- Analysis
My primary interest is in historical books. Following a request for input at WP Books, I went to the talk page for The Forgotten Holocaust. I made a small number of comments offering what I think were fairly unobjectionable suggestions, based on my expertise with book articles: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. For these comments, an anonymous threat was left on my talk page. You will see that I am accused of Slandering the reputation of Poland and lying about Jewish communist crimes
even though not one of my comments said anything about Poland or Jewish people. That escalation suggests a severe and deeply entrenched battleground mentality somewhere. This is the very first online threat of any kind I have received in my life, and I am not a young person. Something is very, very wrong here.
I was already growing exhausted by the talk page when this threat occurred. Although the anonymous threat is the most alarming part, I would also observe the following troubling phenomena:
- Piotrus and Nihil Novi seemed so caught up in "fighting" that they fought deletion scarecrows, as if they couldn't even understand what others were discussing: Piotrus Nihil Novi
- Piotrus and GizzyCatBella made heavy use of the idea that the article is somehow obliged to represent every book review, and opposed the mere concept of removing any material: GizzyCatBella Piotrus -- an approach I consider intentionally obstructionist in this context
- In general, Piotrus' contributions were long, unconstructive, misrepresented academic norms, and misunderstood his interlocutors, as here (see the reply), and in this very strange argument about a review published in the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society.
The key obstructive move I encountered was a large number of small claims that are so strange that they are hard to respond to. I question Piotrus' willingness or WP:COMPETENCE to evaluate appropriate sources in this context. I see very alarming behaviour from Piotrus, Nihil Novi, and GizzyCatBella, which will drive away constructive editors. And I think it would be well worth investigating the IP address of the anonymous threat I received.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LEvalyn (talk • contribs) 03:20, March 16, 2023 (UTC) Addition/clarification: In case I was not sufficiently explicit, I am the editor who has been driven away. (c.f. asilvering's line about being the historian who is alarmed) The talk page was very challenging to read. I often couldn't see how some editors' comments were meant to constitute replies to what had been said (e.g., [20] [21][22][23][24][25]). I attribute much of the confusion to editors who interpret all comments as attacks. (For example, Piotrus has expressed that his reply about AfD was based on the misunderstanding that we proposed blanking the whole page. I am sure that it was an honest misunderstanding; however, I believe that this misunderstanding sprang to mind due to a battleground mentality.) In an environment that felt hostile, I struggled to keep my own temper even though I have essentially zero opinions about Poland. I concluded that it wasn't worth it, and decided not to edit in the topic area in future. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- (Response to Piotrus) I believe that it was not your intent to create an unpleasant editing environment. We have interacted fine in other topic areas, and I hope we will do so again in future. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- About current threats broadcasted by the IP 199.7.159.46 ( see Evidence presented by LEvalyn):
- I addressed those recent joe-job attempts here including IP 199.7.159.46 (see my remarks at Maybe semiprotect that Signpost talk page):
- Background: I was followed on Wikipedia and harassed by Icewhiz's sock puppets for the last 3 years. (Icewhiz doesn't know my real identity, thank God) His sock-puppets (or sock-puppets of his pals) acted to be me in the past. That was the latest attempt. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Zero0000 - Arbcom is aware of this activity. I just wanted to make sure that it's clear to innocent bystanders as to who might be (I’m sure it is) behind those false-flags. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- First, I want to thank LEvalyn for joining the discussion (the more editors become involved in related discussions, the better), and express my sadness that she has been subject to harassment by an IP. Second, I'd like to note that I indeed misundertood the invokation of WP:TNT and at first thought some editors are suggesting blanking this entire article without a discussion, because I've seen such issues occasionally brought up at AfD where I am a frequent contributor (at AfD, in my experience, invoking TNT means saying "this is a total mess, delete it, nothing to rescue"). Misunderstandings happen, but I believe I was respectful and polite, and when my misunderstanding was explained (that concerns were related to a particular section, not the entire article), I did not press the issue. Third, I tried to create a friendly-to-newcomers atmosphere by explicitly inviting people to make edits [26]
You are welcome to add more quotes, or remove ones you think are undue
. I did not try to have a "last word", I just expressed my opinions, quoted or linked to some policies I thought relevant, and let others have their say. I did not edit war - in fact I did not make a single revert of any recent changes to that article, even through I disagreed with some, explicitly to avoid any battleground-like deterioration. With all due respect, I am unclear what policies or best practices I have violated by making a few polite and respectful comments in a discussion (I don't believe my comments violated NPA or any other policies). If anything in what I wrote was offensive to anyone, they could've asked me to WP:REFACTOR and I'd gladly have considered this. I'll end by saying that I appreciated LEvalyn's comments, I consider her input valuable, I am sorry to hear she found the discussion less then ideal. It was, certainly, not my intention to drive her away, and if anything I said can be refactored, I again express total willingness to do so, and I apologize for any impression that her contribution are anything less then very much welcomed and appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
@LEvalyn: In responce to [27] I believe that it was not your intent to create an unpleasant editing environment. We have interacted fine in other topic areas, and I hope we will do so again in future.
Thank you for your kind words. Nonetheless, if my intent and the outcome are distinct, I would like to ensure that I learn from this incident. I stand by my offer to WP:REFACTOR any comment I made that you found problematic. Also, in reply to I attribute much of the confusion to editors who interpret all comments as attacks
, I would like to note that I never felt attacked in that discussion; IMHO, CIVIL/NPA/AGF were observed by all participants; polite disagreements happen on the way to WP:CONSENSUS and the entire recent history of talk and associated article edititing seems to represent best practices per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Lastly, I hope you'll reconsider your decision to not to edit in the topic area in future
. I can only speak for myself, but I want to reiterate that your contribution to the discussion in question was welcome and appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Threats. The stupid threats with deliberately stereotypical language left by 199.7.159.46 on the talk pages of multiple users just as this case opens is just so convenient. Since the only plausible effect of this trolling was to prejudice the case in the anti-Polish direction, the most likely explanation is that the troll intended exactly that. False flag, in other words, and I'm confident the committee won't fall for it. Zerotalk 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Response to LEvalyn. I studied Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust diff-by-diff starting at the first version edited by LEvalyn. It had been suggested that the article deserved a TNT because of Grabowski&Klein's attack on it, and LEvalyn agreed. (As an aside, I believe Wikipedia should never offload its responsibility for article content to an external person or group.) LEvalyn came to that talk page with the claim of being an expert on writing articles about books [28] but encountered resistance. What followed after that was a garden-variety non-toxic discussion about what the article should contain and what its structure should be. It is perfectly reasonable to have different opinions on how and how many book reviews should be mentioned in an article on a book. LEvalyn asserted: "any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book",[29] but that is not true; lots of mainstream history books get critical reviews and sometimes entire journal issues are devoted to debate about them. LEvalyn is concerned that the article might give someone a positive impression of the book.[30] LEvalyn's charges against Piotrus have no foundation; in fact Piotrus only offered fair opinion expressed politely. Agree with those opinions or not, they were not "long", nor "unconstructive", nor did they "misrepresent academic norms". It was Piotrus who asked for a 3O.[31] GCB's hanging offence was a single sentence suggesting that the article be expanded! In my opinion, LEvalyn did not identify any behavioral problems and the talk about driving people away is silly. Zerotalk 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Response to Zero (moving from where I'd posted it to 'Evidence'): My statement that
any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book
and Zero's rebuttal thatlots of mainstream history books get critical reviews and sometimes entire journal issues are devoted to debate about them
are not contradictory: that is because many mainstream history books are controversial. Negative reviews and debates are the controversy. Both Zero and Nihil Novi appear to read quite a lot into my comment; my best guess is that this is a battleground-informed reaction to the fact that I wikilinked WP:FRINGE. - I'd add here as well: I think my other additions/clarifications at the evidence page address your other points. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't edit in the area at all and have no personal stake in it. I don't agree with your response but won't reply to it. Zerotalk 13:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Response to Zero (moving from where I'd posted it to 'Evidence'): My statement that
Disruption in the topic area over time
- Evidence
- Analysis
This area is one of the "contentious topics". But the fact is that for the past year it actually has NOT been contentious. The pattern is that the topic area has been quieting down since the imposition of the 500/30 restriction by the Arbitration Committee in May 2020 and especially since that was changed to extended confirmed protection in September 2021. To be sure, there was a lag, mostly due to the fact that it took some time for Icewhiz to burn through some of his "established" socks: [32] [33] [34] [35] (and at least a dozen more). In fact, most of the disputes between mid-2020 and early 2022 involved at least one Icewhiz sock, who were showing up to pour gasoline on a diminishing fire.
Of course the relative quiet of 2021 was "punctured" by the December 2021 WCC case request. This too had heavy involvement from Icewhiz as he was emailing several individuals, including the filer. This was closed in February of 2022 and really ever since then there hasn't been much going on (this is both why all the stuff in the G&K paper is so old and also why most of the evidence being presented here is stuff that happened AFTER this paper was published and case opened).
One way to see this is to look at the number of Poland-related (especially Holocaust in Poland) WP:AE reports by year. This is probably as good of a metric of "contentiousness" as you're going to get.
Here is the number of AE reports by topic area in 2020 and 2021. In 2020 there were seven AE reports in this topic area, sixth highest out of all the topic areas subject of such reports. In 2021 there were only three, third lowest, ahead of only "Motorsports" and "pseudoscience".
I am not including a graph for 2022 for the simple reason that there were exactly zero AE reports in this topic area last year.
It also helps to look at the trends over time. Here is a graph of Poland related (not just Holocaust) AE cases by year, going back to 2011. There was good bit of controversy in 2011 but this was mostly unrelated to the Holocaust (it was mostly related to the also-indef-banned User:Russavia). Between 2012 and 2017 things quieted down. It was the arrival of Icewhiz which changed things, as can be clearly seen from the graph. Icewhiz filed a record number of AE reports in very short time [36] and indeed this was one of the Findings of Fact during the 2019 case [37]
Beginning in 2022 and right up to the publication of the G&K paper, this was simply NOT a contentious area. The interventions by the Committee, as well as the work of several dedicated admins (yes, User:El_C, that does include you too) in blocking Icewhiz socks (even if sometimes with a bit too much of a delay) had done what it was suppose to. It worked.
Of course this doesn't speak to the content and it may very well be the case that several articles need some serious fixin'. But as far as conduct goes - which is what this case was labeled as being about [38] - there just hasn't been much going on in recent past.
(detailed data behind the graphs above available upon request) Volunteer Marek 06:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- As I noted in the evidence page (really should have done it here in the first place) I think links to the data are very useful for veriifcation by others. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Evidence
- Analysis
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Evidence
- Analysis
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Evidence
- Analysis
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions/Requests from Arbitrators
This section should be edited only by Arbitrators and Clerks. Any response to questions/requests posed here should be done on the Evidence page or done above as a section under #Analysis of evidence as appropriate.
- I haven't looked through the talk page archive or correlated any of it to these reverts. If we're looking at how conduct might impact article and source quality, a deeper dive into interactions like these is probably the direction we should go. If people on the talk page are looking for something to do, I'd appreciate evidence submissions which look deeper into this and other issues raised by Ealdgyth. — Wug·a·po·des 02:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding #Icewhiz socks presented by GizzyCatBella - are there any instances where FR and Icewhiz (or his socks) disagree? I have no issue with the information as presented currently, but I do not want a false dichotomy of "FR and IW always agree" if there are instances where this is not the case. In other words, right now you have indicated 100% support between these two, which seems somewhat unlikely (though not impossible), and I would rather get a better idea of the real value for that agreement percent. Primefac (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would be interested in hearing more perspectives/evidence about what happened at Jan Żaryn RfCs 1, 2. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Lembit Staan: particularly want to hear your thinking (both at the time and now) about your participation in those discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- What does the conduct of named parties at noticeboard discussions (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_333#Mass_removal_of_criticisms_from_the_Polish_Institute_of_National_Remembrance) show and tell us? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Want to hear more perspectives/evidence about why RfCs in the topic area would attract a small, but reasonable, number of participants but then fail to be closed. Examples include the Jan Żaryn RfCs, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355#RfC:_Polish_sources, and Talk:Justice_for_Uncompensated_Survivors_Today_Act_of_2017#RfC:_Mentioning_the_protests_against_the_law. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Piotrus provided examples of changes to his editing over time. I would be interested in similar evidence from/about other long time editors in this topic area, particularly from Volunteer Marek and François Robere. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I too am interested in this. It does not necessarily have to be a personal reflection, so if someone notices someone else's behaviour improving/declining/etc over time that would be useful information to have. Primefac (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- In retrospect, what went wrong and right in the editing and talk page discussions of History of the Jews in Poland in Feb - June 2019? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- It feels like several of the discussions since the release of the paper have been better at finding consensus and that some of the conduct issues I observe haven't spiraled out of control. One explanation for this is the absence of Icewhiz. I would be curious to hear any evidence and analysis about other reasons this might have been the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: how do you decide when to publicly discuss something with another editor/admin/arb and when to email that editor/admin/arb? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am somewhat concerned by the timeline in the Zygmunt Krasiński and The Undivine Comedy section presented by François Robere. The other sections around it can be reasonably explained by watchlists, but the timeline in this section is a bit more suspect. Volunteer Marek, how is it that you came to learn of Mellow Boris and their edits to Zygmunt Krasiński, which you reverted wholesale in Special:Permalink/958695415? Primefac (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would appreciate more clarity around potential conflicts of interest and how to assess their impact moving forward. We already have in evidence a few examples of editors modifying the BLP of a subject who has criticized them, publishing articles (both in the press and on-wiki) about BLP subjects who criticize them, and removing sources in which editors are criticized. To me it seems like there is a potential conflict between the the personal or professional interests of some editors and the interests of the encyclopedia. Put another way, I'm puzzling over how to interpret this line from the COI guideline:
[Subject mater experts] are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.
There's obviously a scholarly dispute underlying this case. To be perfectly clear, the Arbitration Committee will not resolve that scholarly dispute because it is outside our jurisdiction. What we may consider, though, is how to manage potential conflicts of interest when editor-scholars become embroiled with external scholarly disputes, particularly when that "external role[ or] relationship[]" appears to "interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia". There's no hard line here, as the COI guideline saysHow close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense
, but I think we need to examine the potential conflict given that a public feud between Grabowski and specific editors has been ongoing for multiple years across multiple venues including on-wiki.So this is all framing for two questions that I would like evidence or analysis on:- To what extent have potential conflicts of interest been a problem in this topic area? We've seen a handful of examples, but there is a big difference between editors with a COI adding uncontroversial facts and those writing whole articles on the subject they have a COI regarding. Have potential conflicts of interest actually been an issue?
- To what extent might potential conflicts of interest be a problem moving forward? For example, it seems like editing of the Jan Grabowski biography stopped after WP:BLPCOI was raised as a concern, and the COIN thread resolved. If there are potential conflicts of interest, do they pose a substantial risk moving forward or have they been resolved through other processes already?
— Wug·a·po·des 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: thanks for your latest thoughts about the topic area and for noting that you were driven from the topic area. Your displeasure with the topic area and with ArbCom has been clear throughout this case. What's less clear to me is what you'd actually like done. For all of the other parties that have participated in the case to the extent that you have I have some clear idea. Your displeasure is so clear and your the frustration you seem to feel is palpable and so I'd kind of thought you'd just written the whole topic area off. But your last paragraph suggests I have that wrong and you think something can be done, I just don't understand what. For instance, are you suggesting that the source restriction be repealed? If not, what are you suggesting be done with it given your thoughts about the Buidhe AE request? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)