Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop

Comments by Piotrus
I previously posted this in my evidence section, but perhaps it belongs here as a proposed motion or such? I'd appreciate advice from an arbitrator or clerk on the right place/format. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for reassessment and apology consideration for topic ban for Poeticbent
The most constructive thing this ArbCom could do is to review and hopefully rescind, with an apology, the topic ban against User:Poeticbent which caused his retirement. He was the author of 1000+ quality articles including 200+ DYKs, many of them on Polish-Jewish history, like his GA on the Treblinka extermination camp, and also a contributor of helpful infographics like a map of the Holocaust in Poland. See AE where he received his topic ban for a single diff perceived as violating NPA and comments on his talk page. While this ArbCom may or may not issue sanctions against others, it is also high time ArbCom tried to foster a good editing environment by repairing past damage and actively encouraging editors who are here to build the encyclopedia, sending a message that Wikipedia is here for content, not for fighting and flaming. This is also relevant to this case, not only because Poeticbent is listed as a party, but because a prolific content creator, being driven away after having been baited into making a single NPA, is a prime example of the damage done to our community and to the project's overarching mission, when 'remedies' are being handed out in a cowboy fashion without considering the 'big picture'. ArbCom should therefore review the appropriateness of Poeticbent's topic ban in its findings, and consider the pros and cons of an apology to him. While such apologies and outreach are not common practice, precedents are to be set, and I specifically recommended that Wikimedia Foundation creates an outreach program targeting retired, prolific contributors in my peer reviewed paper. If a precedent is set and he returns, recovering a very prolific content creator for the project, it my humble opinion it would mean this ArbCom would have already achieved much, much more than most others. And I wager that you, dear committee members, would probably feel better about your role, too, being remembered as a THE Committee that started the process of actually helping people and saying nice things about them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talk • contribs)
 * And the admin who closed it noted that only one of those PA was actionable. I do hope that the Committee will review this particular AE request very carefully. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Confused
How come the workshop phase is closed without arbitrators participation? How are the parties to engage with Arbitrators? Or will the Arbitrators declare their views / etc. with no opportunity for parties and community to offer comments and engage with them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've expressed your concerns to the committee via the Clerks-L mailing list. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Icewhiz

 * Poeticbent was TBANed after he filed an AE complaining a WP:SPS was removed, and due to multiple personal attacks - not one - the following were in evidence at the AE:, , , , , . Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quoting - "':*I've looked more closely at Icewhiz's counterallegations regarding Poeticbent. The charge of misusing SPS isn't something I'd act on, because it's close to a content dispute and it's not realistic to expect admins here to check the reliability of this number of sources; that would need an ArbCom case. But I think that Icewhiz's complaint regarding personal attacks by are actionable; one needs only to look at their most recent edit ('you are being manipulated by a POV pusher with a deep bias against Polish people in general') in addition to Icewhiz's examples to get the impression that this is somebody who operates in full WP:BATTLEGROUND mode. I think that a topic ban from the World War II history of Poland (the apparent topic of this set of disputes) would be appropriate here.'" - the closing admin specifically noted "in addition to Icewhiz's examples". Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will also note, that - "The charge of misusing SPS isn't something I'd act on, because it's close to a content dispute and it's not realistic to expect admins here to check the reliability of this number of sources; that would need an ArbCom case" - is exactly the issue with the current DS regime / AE enforcement. Users may introduce dubious sources, repeatedly, a WP:V policy violation - yet face no enforcement under DS as it is deemed too complex for enforcement. Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue jumping
, - VM entered this newly created section - in between other editors (placing himself 2nd under MJL, over myself and 4 other editors). Is this permitted on the workshop page? Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was hoping not to have this conversation again. I've put the sections back in order. – bradv 🍁  12:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Delay / Reopen
- I join VM in advising against simply reopening the workshop - the last couple days around the deadline were hectic and escalatory, driven in part by a non-party. HOWEVER, I do think that perhaps reopening this after Arbs have read the case, have questions, and are able to mediate and/or arbitrate - would be a good idea. Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It might even make sense to setup a Workshop2 page, or structured Q&A page, or whatever page structure that is separate from the current jumble of workshop - but really - best after you've gone through this. Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks I'll take it into consideration WormTT(talk) 15:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by François Robere
Volunteer Marek added new evidence directly to the Workshop - data that, if accepted, would bypass the word limit and deadline of the Evidence phase, and require an extension to the Workshop phase so that it may be reviewed by parties and uninvolved commentators. Please advise. François Robere (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, are the Arbs following this in real time? François Robere (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this the right room?
This procedure has become a farce. Everyone involved, I think, were hoping for an honest interrogation and perhaps some healing of the situation in this topic area, but instead we got a worse version of AE's "peanut gallery". Civility isn't enforced, order is lacking, deadlines are passed, and the Arbs and Clerks are nowhere to be seen. François Robere (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek: Hardly. I never litter.
 * I don't really care. There's any number of ways they could've dealt with this case other than abandoning it. François Robere (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Unfortunately the primary clerk assigned to this case BradV retired over some of the recent issues here on Wikipedia, and the other clerk  is a trainee. I'm working to back track on this case the best I can right now. I've expressed your concerns to the committee. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by MJL
I'm not a party to this case, so maybe this isn't a comment I shouldn't be making... However.. I think that Poeticbent should be removed from this case as soon as possible. I see no prevailing reason why arbitrators need to review this editor's conduct in light of the fact they retired a year ago with no edits since. What else can be said previously that has not already been said by administrators at AE? This seems like nightmare version of WP:Gravedancing (Graverobbing if you will). Can arbs or the clerks please review this matter and take decisive action? Regards, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know the clerks are active here, but I don't know how active onwiki the arbs are for this case. Arbcom has three concurrent cases right now (which is the most it's been in a while). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you are incredibly busy with more important things, but could you please review whether there should be an extension to the workshop phase? Alternatively, additional clerks can be added to this case because things are starting to get pretty rowdy here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

More proposals
My apologies in advance if this creates more work for the committee, but I am likely to make a few more proposals in an attempt to see a more desirable outcome for the parties involved. If this at any point becomes more burdensome than helpful to review, I please ask that appropriate measures be taken including sanctions against me to discourage such disruption in the future. Though it may be my intention to be helpful, I recognize I am woefully under-qualified to do so and there may be significant blowback here. Kindest regards, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make clear in this self-reply that I have had no intentions of stirring the pot. Most of my proposals are pretty par-for-the-course (with the obvious exemption of the neologism) if you ask me. The fact they are coming a mere few hours before the workshop phase has closed was both accidental and intentional. I really wanted this stuff considered without too much controversy, but I also ran out of time to gain the confidence to post them. My apologies for the further mess.. } &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Etc.
*whispers* Threaded discussion *whispers* &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please close out the Workshop and clean up the discussions? I'm not supposed to do that sadly. } &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please help out here. Neither user above has edited in a few days, and this case is in some dire need of clerking. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Next step is /Proposed decision which (I believe) be open to comments at the associated talk page. Regards, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just seen all of this and I'm working to do some clerking on this. Unfortunately BradV has retired over the current issues here on Wikipedia and is still a trainee clerk so I'm going to try and see if I can help out here. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] Yeah, I don't envy the clerks nor arbcom in their current situation. Yikes.. I appreciate your willingness to step up, though! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about Housekeeping
Would it be possible to enact as a remedy to this case the rescinding of Occupation of Latvia "Article probation" and "Continuing jurisdiction"? It's tangentially related to this case, but I don't want to waste any more of the committee's resources than necessary. Regards, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We'll look at that. Thank you.   AGK  &#9632;  21:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome, that's great to hear! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Volunteer Marek

 * I have moved VM's comments to this section to comply with the committee's direction that talk pages on this case are to be sectioned. This is a clerk action. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Icewhiz (Vm 7/2/19) is exactly the issue with the current DS regime / AE enforcement. Users may introduce dubious sources, repeatedly, a WP:V policy violation - yet face no enforcement under DS as it is deemed too complex for enforcement - I completely agree. This is exactly why you haven't been sanctioned yet despite your own use of dubious sources   ("niezalezna.pl")  (celebrity gossip columnist)  (author who's specialization is catfish fishing used to cite historical claims). And that's just the tip of the iceberg.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - I know you think that "the order doesn't matter", but since the workshop page is sooooo long, I do think there is a genuine cause for concern that Arbitrators and others will only read the first portion (i.e Icewhiz's) and not the bottom of the page. That's how human beings usually navigate text. If the order is "not important", why is Icewhiz so adamant that his statements and evidence come at the top? Why is he moving people's statements around? A more reasonable outcome here is to place the proposals by the editors who are actual parties (myself and Icewhiz) at the top, and the rest below. Since it appears to be so hugely important to him to be first, put his first, I don't care. Just don't leave me at the bottom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying earlier, but I assure you the arbs will read all of the workshop proposals, not just the ones at the top. – bradv  🍁  03:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Francois Robere (V 7/219) I mean, as a non-party to the case (as of now), you're part of the "peanut gallery", no? Anyway, I'm assuming that all this has to do with all this and the stuff related to Fram. Ours is an insignificant spat compared to other stuff the committee has to deal with now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the delay is understandable. But re-opening the Workshop is probably a bad idea. What else can be said that hasn't already been said? The thing is a huge mess as is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be right, I'll revisit if I have any questions WormTT(talk) 15:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by My very best wishes
I apologize that my part of Evidence looks pretty much "anti-Icewhiz". Actually, I interacted positively with him on a number of occasions and think he is generally a good and highly educated contributor. I provided such negative Evidence about his editing in this narrowly defined subject area (only) for two reasons. First, I did not like his long-term wiki-battle on WP:AE and numerous pages with several good faith and highly dedicated contributors like VM, Poeticbent, Piotrus, and others. Secondly, I do not like the hints by Icewhiz at the alleged anti-Jewish views and edits by VM. Unfortunately, it is exactly what Icewhiz means, as should be obvious from his statements during the Workshop phase (see this section and sub-section with my reply below, as well as this). This is really really offensive. Not only VM has no such views, but he has exactly opposite views, as obvious from his editing in areas like Race&Intelligence and US politics. I think Icewhiz may own a serious apology to VM, but it is probably too late for that. My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria. The book was published in Poland (not self-published) and some authors are professors in US universities. Perhaps some views qualify as "minority, even "fringe" (I am not an expert). If specific views/publications in the book are WP:FRINGE, they should not be used or even mentioned anywhere (this is clearly not anything notable). That fringe nonsense was placed to pages by ... Icewhiz, removed by VM, and placed back again by Icewhiz . Why? The edit was clearly constructed to disparage living person, the subject of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Stefka Bulgaria
The RfC at RSN on "Hearts of Gold" discussed in the evidence and workshop just closed:. While the fringe status of this source was unresolved, consensus of uninvolved editors was that this is unreliable. I think it is interesting to point out that those supporting use of this source published by a SPLC profiled (covering anti-semitism, "white genocide", gay rights, etc. ) far-right activist (My Very Best Wishes, Piotrus, Volunteer Marek) are involved in this case. Perhaps views held by some editors on US politics and Race&Intelligence do not extend to sourcing policy for the Jewish minority in Poland? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Delay
Hi all. Please, accept my apologies for not being nearly as active as I should have been in this case. We've had a lot on our plates over the past couple of weeks, and since this is an in depth case, it has suffered. I am hoping to play around with the case deadlines in the next day or so, and might even re-open the workshop for an additional week, so that we can have a proper participatory workshop. For the moment, thank you all for your patience. WormTT(talk) 14:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort
Given that your proposed decision's locust of dispute explicitly states "This complex dispute centers on reliable sourcing, non-neutral point of view, and battleground behavior over a range of articles related to antisemitism and Jewish history in Poland, specifically in relation to World War II and The Holocaust, and including a number of BLPs of scholars studying these topics, I'm curious to know why the arbitration committee wouldn't elect to simply consider this case under the header of the older German war effort case, merging the two to create a single, unified, user friendly (as it were) case concerning the overall German War Effort - which already included the Holocaust, a World War II based event carried out by elements of German's military at the time - and move to address both the Germany revisionist history of World War II (which K.e.coffman already pointed out is a known problem on Wikipedia) and the ongoing issues surrounding World War II's role in antisemitism, which have been specifically singled out here in this case. The committee, closing the German war effort case, noted in its remedies that: "'While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions." It would seem (to me anyway) that merging the two cases into a single, unified Germany in World War II case would allow the committee to better tackle both of the given issues and those that have apparently repeatedly arisen from them time and time again on the English Wikipedia. Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)