 |
 |
If you find this site useful or just support what I'm doing, I'd really appreciate if you could donate. To cover server costs and for the hundreds of hours I've put into making this happen.
|
 |
If you spot content on this site that is genuinely illegal or actually puts someone in real danger, contact [email protected]. We have multiple agents reviewing tickets 24/7. Note that we try to maintain as much transparency as possible, both about ourselves and of the actions of Wikipedians. For example, if we removed a live link to CSAM content that was posted by a Wikipedia admin, we would replace it a placeholder like "<link to CSAM that was posted by Demiurge1000 redacted by Undersight>". Note that "I don't like it" is NOT a valid removal reason. If instead you are a Wikipedophile trying to get all the dark secrets of Wikipedia censored, please follow this guide instead.
If you would like to contact the owner of this about something else (e.g. press inquires, feature requests, bug reports), e-mail [email protected] or [email protected].
|
Revision 920392973 of "User talk:Jimbo Wales" on enwiki{{noindex}}
{{Stb}}
{{Usercomment}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-sock|small=yes}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an [[open door policy (business)|open door policy]].'''<br />
'''He holds the founder's seat on the [[WP:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]]'s [https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board/ Board of Trustees].<br />The current [[m:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees#Current_members|trustees]] occupying "community-selected" seats are [[User:Doc James|Doc James]], [[User:Pundit|Pundit]] and [[User:Raystorm|Raystorm]].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is [[User:JEissfeldt (WMF)|Jan Eissfeldt]].'''}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, <br> [[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected|you can leave a message here]] '''}}}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:TPS/banner}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(2d)
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 237
| maxarchivesize = 350K
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
__TOC__
{{-}}
== Arbitration appeal by Icewhiz ==
=== Statement by Icewhiz ===
Mr. Wales,
I'm appealing (per [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeal to Jimbo Wales|this policy]]) the decision in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland]]. I requested a case on 1 June 2019 after being [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=899752183#Volunteer_Marek referred to do so by admins at AE]. The case was opened on 9 June 2019. The committee failed to engage during the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop|workshop phase]]. The case then languished, unprocessed save a temporary IBAN injunction (sanctioning also me) after I dared complain in August of continued [[WP:HOUND]]ing during the case [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Volunteer_Marek_continued_hounding here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Volunteer_Marek_-_continued_hounding_14_August_-_LGBT here]. The PD draft, riddled with errors, was only published on 7 September. The committee ignored multiple involved and uninvolved editors, pointing out errors at [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision|the proposed decision talk page]].
Mr. Wales, I accuse that:
# The arbitration committee failed to engage during the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop|workshop phase]]. Committee member Worm That Turned admitted this - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Workshop&diff=904646766&oldid=904639821 diff] - {{tq|"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"}} (this did not occur).
# The drafting arbiter produced a biased [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision|proposed decision]], seemingly picking random assertions from the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence|evidence]] without properly evaluating the claims therein and subsequent workshop discussion. Among the more absurd findings: ('''Extended refutation of additional FoFs''' section below covers these and others in more depth)
## Deeming {{tq|"Polophilic"}}([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Home_Army&diff=prev&oldid=845142303 diff]) as {{tq|"inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments"}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Incivility_and_inflammatory_rhetoric] - contrast our [[Polonophile]] article (and [[Francophile]] or [[Anglophile]]) and mainstream use of this positive language.<ref name="macleans"/><ref name="Howe"/><ref name="Palmer"/>
## Deeming [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Szczuczyn_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=813832763 diff] as a {{tq|"negative insinuations about Poland"}}. Beyond it being unclear how "negative insinuations about Poland" are counter to Wikipedia policy, my statement on the legality of writing on Polish complicity in Poland is in fact within mainstream academic consensus on the effects of the widely condemned [[Act on the Institute of National Remembrance#2018 amendment|Polish Holocaust Law]] - e.g. {{tq|”Moreover, the law also criminalised any insinuation that individual Poles may have committed anti-Semitic crimes during the Holocaust”}}.<ref name="Subotic"/> See also:<ref name="Gauba"/><ref name="Ray"/><ref name="BBC201802"/><ref name="Wapo201802"/><ref name="Hackmann"/>
## deeming [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Home_Army&diff=prev&oldid=846659899 diff] as {{tq|"BLP-violating edits on talk pages by posting negative claims or speculations about living scholars"}} - however this is '''not speculation''', Davies said so himself, and this is one of the most widely covered episode in his career. See [[New York Times]] - [https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/13/us/scholar-says-his-views-on-jews-cost-him-a-post-at-stanford.html SCHOLAR SAYS HIS VIEWS ON JEWS COST HIM A POST AT STANFORD] or [https://books.google.co.il/books?id=fjtGRgKZLtkC&pg=PA79&dq=%22Norman+Davies%22+Stanford+tenure&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDhMbbgb7kAhXCoVwKHbrJBEYQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Norman%20Davies%22%20Stanford%20tenure&f=false this book]. Or [[Financial Times]] in 2012, [https://www.ft.com/content/12a5994a-17aa-11e2-9530-00144feabdc0] labelling this as {{tq|"the most controversial episode of his academic career"}}
# The arbitration committee has failed to properly weigh the evidence placed before them, !voting in the affirmative on the proposed decisions that included findings of fact that are false.
# The arbitration committee of enacting remedies unsupported by evidence and facts.
# The arbitration committee has failed to adhere to the [[WP:ARBCOND|expected conduct of arbitrators]], and ignored community input - failing to respond to community feedback by multiple editors at [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision|proposed decision talk page]] who pointed out several issues in the decision.
# The arbitration committee of creating a chilling effect against the lodging of any future complaint involving fabrication of hateful content on the English Wikipedia.
# This Wikipedia is hosting distortions on the Jewish [[Holocaust]] in [[Poland]] and its aftermath.
# This Wikipedia is not responding properly to complaints on bullying and spread of such content.
Following case closure on 22 September, '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=918518165#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland_closed several uninvolved editors voiced their concerns on the handling of this case and arbitrator conduct on the committee’s noticeboard].'''
==== Extended refutation of additional FoFs ====
{{hat|reason=This section contains several additional issues in the ruling, please expand}}
These FoFs pertain to my alleged conduct. In each there are several errors:
'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Incivility_and_inflammatory_rhetoric 4.2.4]''':
# "made inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments comments ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHome_Army&type=revision&diff=845155228&oldid=845154850], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Home_Army&diff=prev&oldid=845142303])" –this is '''defamatory libel''' by the committee, as this is not only not “ethnically derogatory”, but rather mainstream accepted language. Specifically:
## '''Polocaust''',a contraction of “Polish Holocaust”, is used by mainstream sources (+the Polish government itself) to describe theories advanced by the PiS government and right-wing elements in Poland on the Holocaust in Poland: [https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/21/europe/poland-minister-backs-polocaust-museum-intl/index.html][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-poland/polish-minister-says-backs-idea-to-create-polocaust-museum-idUSKCN1G42F6][https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n09/christian-davies/under-the-railway-line][https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422018770110]
## “Polophilic” – “Polophile” is a spelling variant of [[Polonophile]] (no “ethnically derogatory” in our article), is analogous to [[Francophile]] or [[Anglophile]], and is used by multiple mainstream sources to describe people favorable to Poland.<ref name="macleans">[https://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/polands-president-on-nato-refugees-his-critics-and-the-burden-of-history/ Poland’s president on NATO, his critics and the burden of history], [[Maclean's]], 12 May 2016, quote: "prominent '''Polophiles''' as Timothy Snyder and Norman Davies"</ref><ref name="Howe">[https://books.google.com/books?id=KlxAWCZmy2QC&pg=PA514&dq=Polophile&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3jf315-7kAhUHjqQKHb4PAWcQ6AEISjAE#v=onepage&q=Polophile&f=false World of Our Fathers], By Irving Howe & Kenneth Libo, NYU Press, page 514, quote: "And as a lifelong '''Polophile''', Shatzky faced the additional problem of reconciling, if he could, his love for Polish history and culture with...</ref><ref name="Palmer">[https://books.google.co,/books?id=j6iMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT226&dq=Polophile&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ4-TJxfDkAhWcVBUIHQNQAtgQ6AEIUTAF#v=onepage&q=Polophile&f=false The Baltic], Alan Palmer, Overlook, quote: "... with a '''Polophile''' staff officer, General Wilhelm von Willisen, authorized to raise a Polish army...</ref>
# "made negative insinuations about Poland ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Szczuczyn_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=813832763])" – it unclear what Wikipedia policy prohibits “negative insinuations about Poland”. Furthermore, my comments on the legal environment facing editors on Polish Wikipedia editors as a result of the Holocaust law is in-line with mainstream writing on the subject: {{tq|”Moreover, the law also criminalised any insinuation that individual Poles may have committed anti-Semitic crimes during the Holocaust”}}.<ref name="Subotic">[https://www.cips-cepi.ca/2019/09/19/history-memory-and-politics-in-post-communist-eastern-europe/ History, memory, and politics in post-communist Eastern Europe], 19 Sep 2019, Dr. Jelena Subotic], quote: In 2018, the Polish government passed a law that criminalised the use of the phrase “Polish death camps” to designate German Nazi death camps in occupied Poland, such as Auschwitz, Treblinka and many others. Moreover, the '''law also criminalised any insinuation that individual Poles may have committed anti-Semitic crimes during the Holocaust'''...</ref> See also:<ref name="Gauba">[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-7052-6_10 Gauba, Kanika. "Rethinking ‘Memory Laws’ from a Comparative Perspective." The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law 2018. Springer, Singapore, 2019. 233-249.], quote: "The other kind of memory law imposes a '''duty to forget''' on the citizen. ... Another instance is the recently amended Act on the Institute of National Remembrance (1998, amended 2018) of Poland. The Act was originally passed to criminalize the denial of genocide, crimes against humanity and the Holocaust. The recent amendment criminalizes the attribution of responsibility or co-responsibility to the Polish nation or state for crimes committed by the German Third Reich</ref><ref name="Ray">[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17504902.2019.1567657 Introduction to the special issue – disputed Holocaust memory in Poland], Larry Ray & Sławomir Kapralski, 31 March 2019, quote: hese issues were again thrown into sharp relief in January 2018 when the Polish ruling party Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Justice and Law) introduced the ‘anti-defamation law’ prohibiting claims that ‘the Polish Nation’ was responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes. It was initially made a criminal offence, with up to three years imprisonment, to accuse Poles of complicity in Nazi war crimes. The law asserted extra-territoriality and ‘applies throughout the world, regardless of local laws.’ The ensuing outcry in Europe, Israel and the US continues – for example, under the Twitter hashtag #PolishDeathCamps '''there is widespread condemnation of the defamation laws''', and in one post the Simon Wiesenthal Centre issued a travel advisory for Jews urging them to limit their visits to Poland following ‘Poland’s government campaign to change the historical truth by denying Polish complicity in the Nazi atrocities.’</ref><ref name="BBC201802">[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42920934 Holocaust law wields a 'blunt instrument' against Poland's past], BBC News, 3 Feburary 2018, quote:"There is widespread agreement among historians that some Polish citizens did participate in the Holocaust, by betraying, even murdering Polish Jews. But there is disagreement over whether those acts add up to wider Polish complicity — a nuanced historical debate that the Polish government now seeks to legislate." ... "The bill was condemned by Holocaust charities as well as the US, EU and by Israel, which offered to foot the legal bill of anyone charged."</ref><ref name="Wapo201802">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/01/polands-senate-passes-holocaust-complicity-bill-despite-concerns-from-u-s-israel/ Poland’s Senate passes Holocaust complicity bill despite concerns from U.S., Israel], Washington Post, 2 Feb 2018, quote: "Despite Israeli and U.S. criticism, Poland’s Senate approved a '''highly controversial bill''' Thursday that '''bans any Holocaust accusations against Poles''' as well as descriptions of Nazi death camps as Polish."</ref><ref name="Hackmann">[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14623528.2018.1528742 Hackmann, J. (2018). Defending the “Good Name” of the Polish Nation: Politics of History as a Battlefield in Poland, 2015–18. Journal of Genocide Research, 20(4), 587–606. doi:10.1080/14623528.2018.1528742], quote: "This act, which met with harsh international criticism..."</ref>
'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#BLP_violations 4.2.10]''':
# "made negative edits to BLPs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ewa_Kurek&diff=841808169&oldid=841806495])" – “negative edits to BLPs” are not counter to Wikipedia policy. We are supposed describe BLPs, such as [[David Irving]], in the manner they are described in [[WP:RS]]es. [[Ewa Kurek]] is primarily known for Holocaust distortion (and has been compared to Irving) – [https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/261051/ewa-kurek-favorite-historian-of-the-polish-far-right][https://forward.com/yiddish/398754/why-was-historian-who-blames-jews-for-complicity-with-nazis-considered-for/][https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2019/09/10/holocaust-conspiracy-theorists-met-with-cookies-after-crashing-progressive-candidates-campaign-launch/] (recent media in English, Polish sources also available). When Kurek last visited NYC, her speaking engagements at local churches were cancelled by the bishop – [https://thecity.nyc/2019/06/churches-cancel-speeches-by-right-wing-polish-figures.html].
# "including editorializing in Wikipedia's voice ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ewa_Kurek&diff=prev&oldid=841541215], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ewa_Kurek&diff=next&oldid=842244150])" – in both cases the edits were mostly attributed and sourced to '''high quality academic sources''' (monographs written by scholars in the field, published by reputable publishers) – and closely followed the language in the sources. Kurek espouses the view that Jews lived voluntarily in Nazi ghettos and that this constituted a national autonomy for Jews – {{tq|”outlandish”}} was used by the academic source. Furthermore, these assertions was added by committee member [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision&diff=915061282&oldid=915060112 Premeditated Chaos] without them being in evidence. In one of the exceedingly rare comments on the PD talk page, Premeditated Chaos stated that – this was {{tq|”response in ''Whatever'' newspaper"”}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision&diff=915069575&oldid=915067695] – however the source in question – [https://books.google.co.il/books?id=X_ktCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&dq=%22ewa+kurek%22+historiography&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5y8zjqYrbAhXS-KQKHZpTBVoQ6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&q=Kurek&f=false Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse After the Holocaust: "Poland: where the past is never past", edited by Roni Stauber, essay by Laurence Weinbaum, Routledge, 2010] – is a peer-reviewed secondary source by a scholar in the field and published by [[Routledge]] – '''it is not a newspaper''' – this blatant error indicates that Premeditated Chaos did not thoroughly examine the evidence in question.
# "and made arguably BLP-violating edits on talk pages by posting negative claims or speculations about living scholars":
## [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Home_Army&diff=prev&oldid=846659899] - [[Norman Davies]] tenure at Standford was rejected in conjunction with his writing on Jewish-Polish issues. This '''is not speculation''' - Davies said so himself (filing a protracted lawsuit on this basis), and this has had major coverage. See [[New York Times]] - [https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/13/us/scholar-says-his-views-on-jews-cost-him-a-post-at-stanford.html SCHOLAR SAYS HIS VIEWS ON JEWS COST HIM A POST AT STANFORD] or [https://books.google.co.il/books?id=fjtGRgKZLtkC&pg=PA79&dq=%22Norman+Davies%22+Stanford+tenure&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDhMbbgb7kAhXCoVwKHbrJBEYQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Norman%20Davies%22%20Stanford%20tenure&f=false this book]. Nor is this just an item of the distant past - e.g. [https://www.ft.com/content/12a5994a-17aa-11e2-9530-00144feabdc0 Lunch with the FT: Norman Davies, 2012] in the [[Financial Times]] labels this as {{tq|"the most controversial episode of his academic career"}}
## [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)&diff=prev&oldid=888173237]) - [[Bronisław Wildstein]] is '''not a scholar''' (error #1). Furthermore Wildstein is '''primarily known for the [[Wildstein list]] controversy - the publication of over a hundred thousand names connected by archives to the communists'''. The uproar, at the time, led to Wildstein being fired from [[Rzeczpospolita (newspaper)]] - see [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/feb/05/poland Guardian in English]. At least in English this controversy is his primary claim to notability.
'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Assuming_bad_faith 4.2.5]''':
# "interpreted editing of old text attributable to a long-blocked sock as "proxying" despite lack of evidence of communication with the sockmaster ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=899692454])" – this is a misunderstanding of what I was trying to convey. In my AE complaint I stated that a provision of the [[WP:PROXYING]] policy applies (namely that {{tq|"Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content."}}) in relation to content reinstated after being challenged as a (tagged and blocked) sockpuppet edit. At no point did I assert that proxying was taking place (as it was unlikely) – just that Volunteer Marek '''was responsible''' (as he authored it himself) for verifying the content he reinstated.
# "Icewhiz interpreted an apparent error by Poeticbent as a deliberate hoax ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent:_anti-Jewish_hoaxes]])" – See below - 7 separate serious distortions were presented (some of which involved multiple edits vs. challenges to the content) – a pattern, and far from a single error. Furthermore that charge here relates to an arbitration complaint – a complaint on the introduction of false material to the English Wikipedia:
## '''Jewish Welcoming:''' [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bialystok-following-1939-So.jpg&oldid=181725277 commons], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland&diff=694967242&oldid=694922090 wiki1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bia%C5%82ystok_Ghetto&diff=794106878&oldid=793942440 wiki2] – a drab Soviet election notice was presented as a “'''Jewish welcoming banner for the Soviet forces invading Poland'''”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bia%C5%82ystok_Ghetto&diff=794106878&oldid=793942440] This false presentation of the image falls within the [[Jewish Bolshevism]] [[Antisemitic canard]].
## '''[[Stawiski]]'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stawiski&type=revision&diff=416930182&oldid=416473174] anti-Jewish pogrom perpetrated by Poles were falsely presented as tales of Jewish communists persecuting Poles followed by a massacre carried out by Germans (+{{tq|” Some Poles, who emerged from their forest hideaways.. were led to acts of revenge-killing in German presence (approximately 6 suspects, around July 5–7)”}}). Not only were the facts of this Holocaust massacre distorted, the much more famous [[Jedwabne pogrom]] was presented in the same manner. The presentation here falls within the [[Jewish Bolshevism]] [[Antisemitic canard]].
## '''[[Radziłów]]''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radzi%C5%82%C3%B3w&type=revision&diff=291311803&oldid=278559948][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radzi%C5%82%C3%B3w&diff=430453848&oldid=425734291] – similar false presentation (including Jedwabne denial). Volunteer Marek re-introduced some of this false content – [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radzi%C5%82%C3%B3w&diff=848683983&oldid=848679535], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radzi%C5%82%C3%B3w&diff=848687127&oldid=848686609].
## [[Chełmno extermination camp]] – [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Che%C5%82mno_extermination_camp&diff=554530115&oldid=554512186] – falsely presented as {{tq|” The early killing process carried out by the SS from December 8, 1941, until mid January 1942, was targeted at removal of Jews '''and Poles''' from all nearby towns and villages slated for German colonization”}}. Chełmno was not employed for systematic extermination of Poles. Narrative presented falls into notions of “Polish Holocaust” advanced by the Polish far-right and unsupported by historians.
## [[Belzec extermination camp]] – in a series of edits ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belzec_extermination_camp&diff=537500210&oldid=537488632 2013], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belzec_extermination_camp&diff=599409783&oldid=599405480 2014], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belzec_extermination_camp&diff=660703224&oldid=660557362 2015], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belzec_extermination_camp&diff=664426014&oldid=663290594 2015]) Poeticbent removed long-standing content of wartime and post-war gravedigging by Poles and covered up his removal with fabricated information (e.g. stating the camp was nearly unknown, when it was in fact investigated post-war + was covered extensively in the press due to gravedigging and efforts to stop it. Presenting cleanup efforts by Polish school children in the 1990s as occurring in the 1950s (instead of the gravedigging).
## '''Jewish immigration:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Committee_of_Polish_Jews&oldid=428837136] – post-Holocaust Jewish flight from Poland presented as if prompted by “preferential treatment” in Israel (when the source in-fact states such proposals were rejected), and not by the widespread anti-Jewish violence (the 1946 [[Kielce pogrom]] and others). Volunteer Marek – [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Committee_of_Polish_Jews&diff=899464301&oldid=899347766][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Committee_of_Polish_Jews&diff=899470382&oldid=899469652] – removed sourced information on the anti-Jewish violence and reinstated the false content.
## KL Warschau conspiracy - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_crimes_against_the_Polish_nation&diff=630304181&oldid=627322489] – misrepresenting a source and promoting a conspiracy theory following a citation-needed challenge. Sent to ARBCOM via e-mail (+[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision#Insinuations_of_Holocaust_denial noted to PD]). Promotion of the well-known [[User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory]] (which was present until 2019 in 7 Wikipedia articles).
'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Insinuations_of_Holocaust_denial 4.2.9]''': "Icewhiz inappropriately and falsely linked Volunteer Marek to Holocaust denial ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=899872517]". This is a false charge, since: I provided evidence and made assertions regarding Poeticbent. For Volunteer Marek I stated – {{tq|”Volunteer Marek ..., has been reverting and stonewalling corrections”}}, in the case I provided evidence of Volunteer Marek reverting back in Poeticbent authored content on the Holocaust ([[Radziłów]] massacre, post-Holocaust flight of Jews from Poland).
These issues were presented to the committee by myself and other members of the community, and were not even met with a response.
{{hab}}
====Conclusion ====
Mr. Wales, I’ve demonstrated that the findings are not supported by the evidence, therefore I request that you modify findings and remedies:
# Remove the erroneous FoFs pertaining to me from: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Incivility_and_inflammatory_rhetoric], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Assuming_bad_faith], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Insinuations_of_Holocaust_denial], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#BLP_violations]
# Remove the provisions applying to my edits from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Icewhiz_and_Volunteer_Marek_interaction-banned 4.3.2 Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned] – converting this to a 1-way IBAN.
# Vacate [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Icewhiz_topic-banned 4.3.3 Icewhiz topic-banned].
{{hat|reason=References, click to expand}}
{{ref-talk}}
{{hab}}
=== Comments by involved editors ===
* Regarding the accusation that we've not met [[WP:ARBCOND]]: there's no requirement that we individually reply to every comment or question. Our votes may or may not be influenced by input from others, but they certainly shouldn't be a mere conduit for the subset of the community that comments on the case talk pages (or what would be the point of electing arbitrators?). Speaking for myself, I read the workshop and PD talk page before voting, and I read it again after the case closed and people complained, and I stick by my votes. Several of the points raised there, which Icewhiz implies here were ignored, were actually explicitly discussed during the voting phase of the PD, e.g. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision#Insinuations_of_Holocaust_denial|#Insinuations of Holocaust denial]], [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision#BLP_violations|#BLP violations]]. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 18:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
* On point one, I read over the information that had been posted and did not see a need to re-open the workshop. Like Joe, I read everything thoroughly, multiple times. I stand by my votes. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
=== Comments by uninvolved editors ===
* I thoroughly recommend reading editors' responses to the proposed decision[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision] and to case closure.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=918518165#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland_closed] A total of 21 editors voiced their concerns, not including the parties; the consensus is that this was sub-par performance for ArbCom. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 23:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
*As one of the editors who commented in the linked page about the disappointing lack of interaction between arbitrators and the community in this case (it is pretty clear this case was on a backburner why the more prominent cases / topics were prioritized...) I nonetheless don't see the connection between this and the need for the appeal. That the arbitrators were slow and unresponsive is not related to whether they were 'right' and such. Slow justice is still justice. (Through as as I also said elsewhere, it is hard to see what solution would satisfy everyone, and of course people who get sanctioned will be among those not particularly satisfied...). PS. I think it is clear the Arbitrtion Committee needs to be expanded to include 2x if not 3x the members. Most of the time, 50-75% of the members will burn out/resign/be mostly inactive. See my peer reviewed research on this at [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0268580917722906 Decision making in the self-evolved collegiate court: Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee and its implications for self-governance and judiciary in cyberspace] (for free access go to [[Sci Hub]] :D). Too often ArbCom rejects cases because they can't handle the workload, and if a crisis hits, they find themselves undermanned. More members would be a simple solution. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 09:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* This is an obvious request for a do-over, based on Icewhiz disputing some of the findings. However, if people didn't dispute the findings, we'd hardly need arbitration. It is quite hard to see how any other outcome would have been reached given the long history of battleground conduct, on the part of several editors specifically including Icewhiz. The IBAN is long overdue and the topic ban was inevitable. The removal of both these editors from this contentious area will be better for the project, and actually probably also better for them. Sure, it is not the platonic ideal of an ArbCom case. However, the outcome is what I half expected to happen as a community action from the numerous ANI reports. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 12:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* I agree that this is a sub-par performance from ArbCom. As someone once said, results there usually end up in "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=884241526&oldid=884241086 nothing really being done, or generate a thick forest for bureaucracy, like complicated remedies, discretionary sanctions people have a hard time keeping track of, and "whack everyone involved on the head just for being involved" remedies in one of ArbCom's typical desperate attempts to appear more impartial than they really are]." Icewhiz was indeed on the receiving end of unprovoked [[WP:HOUND]]ing and [[WP:CIVIL]] violations, and was TBANed as a result of reporting this. [[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 11:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* Dear Mr. Wales, Holocaust was a horrible disaster happened in the history of human beings, but this is a separate issue. Israel is [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups causing] systematic bias in Wikipedia. Please, do not let them do that. I know Icewhiz and company from [[People's Mujahedin of Iran|another article]], where they are trying to change history by washing crimes off of this "formerly terrorist group" (currently an ally of Israel). I am a father of two with more than one job. Yet, I cannot stand what is being done before my eyes and that is what is driving me in being a Wiki editor. I apologize if I do not sound eloquent enough, but this is just too much. [[User:Kazemita1|Kazemita1]] ([[User talk:Kazemita1|talk]]) 20:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* I do '''not''' agree that "this is a sub-par performance from ArbCom". I think they did a fine job and made a wise decision. They were a bit slow because of a heavy workload, but that doesn't equal "sub-par performance". Neither does a comparative lack of discussion. Some cases are of such a nature that the editors making comments bring up a bunch of things that require careful thought and extended discussion between arbs and between arbs and editors. Others are pretty cut and dry cases where the arbs look at the situation, read the comments, and all come to the same conclusion. After seeing [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#History at dispute-resolution venues]] and reading the linked discussions, I can't see how they could have come to a different conclusion. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 21:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* I read everything on this case. I didn't agree with everything the arbitrators wrote, but there are no grounds to suggest that they were fundamentally mistaken in their final decisions. The decisions reached by arbcom would likely be reached by any arbcom hearing the case on the same evidence. In summary, this appeal is without foundation. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 01:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
==== Icewhiz blocked indefinitely====
[[Special:Diff/919029271|FYI]]. I fear there was a certain inevitability to this conclusion, its speed being the only surprising aspect. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">'''——'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''SerialNumber''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]] 13:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:Blocked indefinitely by Arbcom with TPA revoked in the middle of appealing an Arbcom decision...largely on the basis of lack of involvement by Arbcom in the case. I’m sure there’s a rock solid reason for this. Anybody know where the reason was explained? (It’s not in the block log or block notice.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 13:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|Levivich}}, Given the circumstances, I'll put up an announcement presently. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 13:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Icewhiz_banned|Announcement]] [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 13:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:Just to note that we were mindful that this appeal was in progress and don't intend to circumvent the process. However, on balance we felt the situation needed a prompt response. Jimbo of course has access to the private evidence and our mailing list discussions should he need to see them to make a decision here. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 18:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::Jimbo, I would appreciate it if you would review this Arbcom siteban of the editor who is appealing to you, and tell us if you agree the evidence justifies it. I think you can appreciate the optics of Arbcom sitebanning an editor during an appeal based entirely on secret off-wiki evidence. (We, like, literally ''just'' went through this exact issue with T&S and Framgate.) Thank you. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Also note that Icewhiz filed this appeal (immediately) ''after'' we contacted him about the off-wiki harassment. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 20:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: Just for the record, how long is "immediately"? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::::Is "immediately" enough time to write that whole appeal with all those diffs? Or could it be that he posted the appeal on the 7th day, i.e., just under the deadline, which would be pretty normal? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 21:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: That's a stupid question. Icewhiz is a very prolific editor - it would be easy for him to compose a 26,475 bytes appeal, complete with 75 links, 52 Wikilinks and 9 refs, between the main course and dessert. Oh, "dessert" - because ArbCom emailed him on the ''[[Rosh Hashanah|Jewish New Year's Eve]]'' - which he may or may not celebrate, but the committee could easily figure he ''might'' - which also happened to fall on the last day he could appeal. Damn good timing! [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::I think the point is that <s>this ArbCom inquiry began</s> we contacted Icewhiz before the appeal to Jimbo, we didn't block them as some sort of reactionary punishment for it. I'll let [[User:Joe Roe|Joe Roe]] answer the question about timing -- looking back through my emails the timing isn't super clear to me because of forwarding/time zones. I'm pretty sure the two events were fairly simultaneous (within a few hours?), but I could be wrong. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 21:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::: Wait, are you saying the "inquiry" started just two days ago, and he's already blocked? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 22:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::No, I've adjusted my wording. It was technically correct to say "this ArbCom inquiry began before the appeal to Jimbo" too, I suppose, but I didn't mean to imply it began just two days ago. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 22:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::It's clear Arbcom didn't start the inquiry in response to this appeal. It's equally clear that WTT and Joe Roe are incorrect in their suggestion that the appeal was filed in response to the inquiry... since the appeal, and Arbcom's first email to Icewhiz, happened almost simultaneously. I look forward to WTT and Joe Roe striking their unfounded accusations that this appeal was a response to the siteban. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Levivich}} I never suggested that Icewhiz posted this in response to our question/ban. I pointed out, as GW said, that ''we'' had no idea he was going to appeal when we started looking into this and already started the ball rolling before he did so. {{ping|François Robere}} 27 minutes. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 06:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::: Thanks. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 11:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Timing, timing, timing!!! Yeah there's bad timing here but that's it. There isn't really anything interesting in this situation that requires a good old Jimbo review. How could anyone seeing a collective yet nefarious conspiracy from our elected ARBCOM officials have their concerns assuaged from the review of our Benevolent dictator for life?[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 20:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:If Jimbo doesn't give them the answer they want, then he is clearly in on the conspiracy...
:I would like to comment on Levivich's claim (''"...based entirely on secret off-wiki evidence. We, like, literally just went through this exact issue with T&S and Framgate"''). Apparently the words "this exact issue" now mean "quite different issues". Arbcom has acted on evidence that they cannot reveal to the rest of us from day one, and rightly so. If Arbcom received private evidence showing that I posted information offwiki containing Levivich's home address, credit card numbers and complete medical records, would he want every detail of that evidence revealed publicly? Or would he want me booted from Wikipedia with no indication of who I outed or where to look for the information I posted? The Fram situation was completely different from arbcom acting on evidence that they cannot reveal to the rest of us. It started with T&S refusing to let anyone -- including Fram, Jimbo and Arbcom -- see the evidence, then under pressure allowed arbcom alone to see but not reveal a redacted version of it. If that's "literally the exact same issue" I am a [[Dalek]]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::Indeed. We have a community system which largely works - but for which there appears to be a significant degree of support for improving. I for one think we need to improve it - which includes finding ways to support ArbCom so that they can make the tough choices and do the right things even when it may generate a lot of noise. Otherwise, we will fail in our mission to make Wikipedia a safe fun thing where we work together in good faith and with good will - and could even face a future in which staff moderators work in a model similar to youtube or twitter or facebook, making unaccountable decisions behind closed doors even in very routine cases.
::In this case, as with all cases, I'm not going to hear an appeal or second guess ArbCom unless there is some very significant reason to do so. Having briefly reviewed the evidence here, and having consulted with ArbCom, I was advised by a member of ArbCom to post my thoughts, which are that I'm completely persuaded by the reasons for this indefinite block and I don't intend to intervene.
::There are plenty of cases where our rather strict rules against outing mean that certain types of evidence and situations dealing with off-site behavior can't be easily or properly discussed on-wiki. We need to trust and support our elected ArbCom, and believe me, I stand ready whenever necessary to exercise my (theoretical?) reserve powers to call an election if I see a power-mad ArbCom going off the rails. We are very very far from that situation today.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 00:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::{{ec}}I, for one, am looking forward to the suggestions that will be brought forth at the upcoming RfC on handling off-wiki harassment or private harassment complaints by folks who have the perfect solution for handling complaints that:
::* allows the (accused party|community) to respond to every shred of evidence
::* allows the (accused party|community) to know precisely who is accusing them
::* allows (accused party|community|ArbCom) to thoroughly verify the identities and motives of the accuser(s)
::* does not release the identities of the accuser(s) to the (accused party|community|ArbCom)
::* does not run the risk of the (accused party|community) being able to identify the accuser(s) from context around the evidence presented
::* does not draw further attention to private/harassing information
::* does not run any risk of encouraging the harasser to escalate their behavior
::* does not run any risk of the accuser(s) facing backlash or additional harassment from others
::* allows for independent review of the evidence and sanction by (the community|a panel of Wikimedians that is not the ArbCom|an outside party|Jimbo|the WMF)
::* is a feasible process for an unpaid group of volunteers with no budget, limited time, and no law degrees/forensic training/etc.
::* verifies connections between Wikipedia accounts and off-wiki accounts with forensic levels of scrutiny (presumably requiring subpoenas or other ways to compel release of private information by sites on which these other accounts are being run)
::* verifies beyond any doubt that the accused party has committed said harassment
::* allows for no possibility of joe-jobbing
::* does not release a reason for what the accused has done, so as to avoid legal connotations around terms like "harassment", etc.
::* precisely identifies what the accused has done, so as to avoid speculation
::I could keep going on with this list for quite some time. Every time some action like this has to be taken, we get a grab-bag of any of these demands, and people are inevitably shocked and angry that we haven't ticked their particular set of boxes. I'm being a bit tongue in cheek here, but seriously, if anyone has suggestions, please raise them at the RfC. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|GorillaWarfare}}, I get your point and I do agree to an extent, but for a start, let's start enforcing on-site harassment and civility. Last week, I was called a cancer to this site, among other things, and nothing was done about it. Can you at least answer if Icewhiz was given the chance to answer the charges? Anyone can say the Twitter was his, but did he have a chance to defend himself? [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 01:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} I just did a search and could not find any evidence supporting the claim ''"Last week, I was called a cancer to this site, among other things, and nothing was done about it."'' There are a significant number of Sir Joseph's edits that have been removed from the page history, presumably as a side effect of removing comments from some troll, so it may very well be that the evidence exists but is not visible to me. If Sir Joseph or anyone else would be so kind as to email me with some sort of hint so I can find the incident, I will be glad to either make sure that something ''is'' done about it or to report that Sir Joseph's claim is misleading, depending on what the evidence shows. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::It's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#Proposal:_Sir_Joseph_is_site_banned here], unhat the "all's well that ends well" hat. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=917232992 Diff].''' In my opinion, what I am seeing in that diff is totally unacceptable, especially followed by a threat to report a [[WP:NPA]] violation over the (far less of a personal attack but still wrong) response "Avoid sounding like a Nazi". [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] and [[User:Levivich|Leviv]], may we please have a better set of apologies and a commitment to not comparing other editors to cancer or Nazis? Sir Joseph in particular deserves a heartfelt apology; that was some really nasty stuff. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 08:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::And since nobody responded, allow me to make an additional comment. El_C blocked an editor for making an almost 100% similar comment, and I posted on El_C's talk page and asked him to do something about this comment, but maybe he didn't see it. In any event, civil discourse and vile comments are only forbidden depending on who you are talking about. I got blocked for saying "Jimbo should have blocked you for longer. You are not an asset to this project." Perhaps that's not nice to say, but I don't think that rises to any level of what we see on a daily basis at all, nor is it what is or was directed toward me and ignored by admins when they saw it. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 23:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed, I missed that, Sir Joseph. And not for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&type=revision&diff=917382346&oldid=917378395 first time], even. Sorry about that, ''again''. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|El C}}, that's OK, people miss things. But other admins on that page didn't miss it, they just chose to ignore it, and it's still there. I would have hoped it would be rev'deled or something. GW went through that discussion, and got rid of the Twitter stuff, I think this deserves to be gone too and something should be done about the NPA violation. I did find it ironic that BMK told Levivich that he was going to complain about his language right after his tirade against me. There was no excuse for his language. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 05:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::I have revdeleted the offending text. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|El C}}, I appreciate it, but it is still there. If you go to [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#Proposal:_Sir_Joseph_is_site_banned]] and open the hatted section, it's in there. Maybe just get rid of that whole section? The whole thing is weird, the main link is suppressed entirely and only the archive is available so I can't even get to the link that Primefac posted on my talk page. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 05:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::Manually redacted. I also left the user a note about conducting themselves with greater moderation in the future. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{u|El C}}, thanks, much appreciated. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} {{re|Sir Joseph}} I could make a whole other list about on-site harassment and civility... Anyway, as is often the case with discussions like this, things have fragmented a bit. We have already confirmed at [[WT:ACN]] that we did contact Icewhiz and ask him to respond to the allegations. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{u|GorillaWarfare}}, As for his response, did he respond? Or did ARBCOM block while waiting for a response? I think that is one issue people have. The communication is not clear. You said you asked him to respond to the allegations, but that doesn't mean he responded or defended himself. Did he? We shouldn't tolerate harassment, but we need to be clear that you're getting the right person, and giving everyone due process. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 01:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::Yes, he did. I am trying to be as transparent as I can here and respond to the questions everyone has, but given that this is a private matter involving serious harassment I am probably not going to go into any more detail. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::OK, understood. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 01:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::I agree with GorillaWarfare very much here. These are all extremely difficult issues, and the truth is: there is no magic bullet. The solution to the issue of harassment is always to be hard. Justice always is.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 01:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: Fortunately we have an example of how to deal with harassment (and other malfeasance) that has been developed over the course of thousands of years of human civilization. We should stop trying to reinvent this from scratch and instead study what others before us have tried and learned. In court, if you want to have secret evidence, you have to apply to the judge for permission to seal the evidence. Even if evidence is sealed, the accused as a right to appoint an agent, an officer of the court (also known as a lawyer) to review the evidence on their behalf and challenge it if need be. How do I know anything about this? I'm not a lawyer but I did go to law school and I work as a technology expert in litigation. We often get evidence marked AEO (attorney's eyes only, a designation that includes experts working for an attorney) which we can review, but cannot share with the client. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: I completely agree. Wikipedia tried to reinvent the wheel more than once without external input, which is how we got these idiosyncratic terms that don't correspond to their "real life" meaning: "harassment" isn't really "harassment";[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=919119606&oldid=919107829] "personal attacks" can be completely impersonal,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&diff=917976722&oldid=917928483&diffmode=source] and even valid criticism,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&diff=917987092&oldid=917979726] "arbitration" isn't really arbitration (at least by one meaning of the term); and conflict resolution procedures (and policy in general) are complex, inaccessible, and even unique. Why not learn from past experience? Why not involve ''experts'' in these fields instead of have hobbyists write all of it? This community is so [[Territory (animal)|territorial]], it pushes on any prospect of outside involvement ("Framgate" being a good example, but also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=919123697&oldid=919119902&diffmode=source this], and even the replies [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_13#Winstone_quotation here]). Are there no better solutions than have a group of untrained, if experienced editors decide based on expertise they don't have, evidence they don't share, and policy that's so ambiguous that it can contradict even a common dictionary? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 14:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::We can have hobbyists write policy. That's fine. What I think we need to recognize where existing systems have already studied and addressed the same problems. If we are going to have secret evidence that can be used against editors, then we need to have a mechanism for those editors to appoint a trusted agent to review the secret evidence on their behalf and advise them in general how to proceed, what arguments to make. Otherwise the accused is left blind and unable to defend themselves at all. That would be obviously unfair. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 14:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: But not on their own - we ''need'' some expert input. This is a '''400,000''' member organization, with '''65,000''' members active at any one time - we need to know how to write policy for an organization of this scale. We need to know how to construct community mechanisms that work reliably and independently. We need proper evidentiary procedures. We need better mechanism for community input. This is all in the realm of constitutional lawyers, organizational psychologists, sociologists and informatics experts - not hobbyists. This ideal that the community can form itself as a sort of "closed system" inadvertently leads to suboptimal results.
:::::::::Sub-optimal results? Quite doubtful since English Wikipedia is a success. Perhaps the only hope for promoting sub-optimal failure is becoming the process workshop, you envision. Comparatively almost no one, is here at English Wikipedia for process, we even bothered to write [[WP:NOT|policy]] about not being into process. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::: So is Facebook, and look at the number of [[Facebook#Criticisms and controversies|scandals]] it's been involved in. Success in one metric isn't a measure of overall results. Here on Wikipedia, the numbers of editors, active editors and newly-registered editors of the English Wikipedia seem to have stabilized at around half of what they were at their peak,[https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/editors/normal|line|all|~total|monthly][https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/active-editors/normal|line|all|~total|monthly][https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/new-registered-users/normal|bar|all|~total|monthly] and the number of admins is the lowest it's been since 2005.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table] Measures of diversity and inclusiveness across Wikipedia projects are low, with 71% of editors reporting being bullied or harassed on Wikipedia in the last year (with the leading reasons for harassment being ethnicity and gender - surprise surprise [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights/2018_Report/Support_%26_Safety#1._Are_there_changes_to_the_level_or_types_of_reported_harassment_on_the_Wikimedia_projects?]),[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights/2018_Report#What_is_the_current_health_of_Wikimedia_communities?_Related_to_community_health,_are_Wikimedia_communities_inclusive?] and around a quarter of editors saying they don't enjoy their time contributing (that's an improvement - it used to be a third).[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights/2018_Report/Contributors] So if you're looking at traffic, number of articles, overall accuracy etc. - yeah, Wikipedia is a huge success (though it does lack significantly in diversity). But if you're looking at the engine of that success - the editors - then it's clear that success had a cost in editor wear and turnover. So yeah - suboptimal. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 16:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::: {{tq|we even bothered to write policy about not being into process}} And yet everything ''is'' about process: ArbCom clerks copy templates by hand;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=914454882&diffmode=source] ANI and AE have both written and unwritten conventions on how to submit a complaint, or it won't be handled (have you seen these pages? [[WP:ANI|ANI]] has an 11 point "information panel" right at the top, and [[WP:AE|AE]] has a thousand word preamble); talk pages are full of policy and guidelines quotes, because just arguing on the merit of a source isn't enough. Of course there's "process" on Wikipedia - everywhere! [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 16:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::All again, very doubtful. You are arguing that there is more than enough process already AND that we need more process. And your solution is to hire experts from places like Facebook or others who have never created an on-line encyclopedia written by users. Your faith in process is misplaced. Process has doubtful attraction to any of the people you are allegedly trying to reach. Process never got someone to write or edit an article on Emmanuel Pratt, Black Metropolis, or Jaqueline Stewart. Process never stopped someone from being bullied, it just leads to claims that process is bullying someone - generally, the best that process can do is shut the barn door after the horse is gone, so process should be light and flexible; and to the extent process is good, it will devolve more power to users, so that there are less and less admins. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::: {{tq|You are arguing that there is more than enough process already AND that we need more process}} No, I'm arguing an organization like this is bound to have some bureaucracy, so let's at least get it right. SPI, for example, is completely redundant, and could easily be replaced by a piece of code.
:::::::::::: {{tq|your solution is to hire experts from places like Facebook }} I didn't say anything about "hiring experts from Facebook".
:::::::::::: {{tq|Your faith in process is misplaced}} Where did you get that I have "faith in process"? The whole point is that current community processes are deeply flawed, push qualified editors out and frustrate most anyone who endures them long enough. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That "some bureaucracy" is either organic or it can have no buy-in. "Experts from places like Facebook and others" would be the ones in your hiring spree, otherwise there are no experts in handling on-line platforms and the people who use them. To the extent the current community processes are "deeply flawed", it is because humans created them and humans are flawed, there is no magic expert to fix that. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 21:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: I'm going to stop here. Not only you missed my point and you're making assertions I didn't make, but you seem to accept the situation as-is ("humans are flawed"), which is something I reject outright. Cheers. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 11:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Jehochman}}, I have to say, I like the sound of allowing a representative of the accused to review the evidence. Obviously, it poses some (quite significant) problems when applied to Wikipedia, since the evidence would, by its nature, be restricted to signatories of NDAs. That would in practice mean Arbitrators, without creating a new user group or something. Could it be made to work... maybe, and that's worth investigating. [[User:Bellezzasolo|<span style="color: #bb9900">∰</span><span style="color: #00326a">'''Bellezzasolo'''</span><span style="color: #bb9900">✡</span>]] [[User talk:Bellezzasolo|<small>Discuss</small>]] 16:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
{{od}} I believe functionaries are qualified. Many of them are former arbitrators. They’ve signed and are trusted. What makes it fair is that the accused can appoint somebody they trust. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 18:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
===== Findings of fact =====
Regardless of the new block, two major and legitimate questions remain: was ArbCom right in making certain FoFs despite the existence of validating RS (§2 in Icewhiz's appeal); and was ArbCom within its [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBCOND mandate] in ignoring the questions and reservations of 16 out of 17 editors who commented on the PD talk page (§5 in Icewhiz's appeal)? I ask that Jimbo reviews these questions, as they have broad implications to the community beyond Icewhiz's case. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 19:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
: The answer to (2) is: yes. They are allowed to ignore the mob. Even if the mob is right. Were they ''right'' to do so in ''this'' case? Who knows. But they are definitely allowed to, and I would not want it any other way. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 20:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:: The mob? Yes. But this wasn't a mob - some of the objections were lengthy and well-reasoned, and directly challenged ArbCom's conclusions. Hence the question. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 11:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Doesn't matter. Yes, Arbcom should ''read'' and ''consider'' all comments, which they clearly do. In that sense, nothing is "ignored". But Arbcom can -- and does on a regular basis -- fail to be persuaded by a comment and Arbcom can -- and does on a regular basis -- choose not to respond to comments (AKA "ignoring" them). What you fail to appreciate is that the comments section of an Arbcom page is there to help the arbitrators, not to meet any needs -- real or perceived -- of the commenters or anyone reading the comments. The arbitrators communicate with us in the form of a final decision, They have no mandate to communicate with us on the talk page. They sometimes do post to the talk page, especially when asking for more details, asking for a clarification, or correcting obvious errors of fact, but they don't ''have'' to respond. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 06:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::Guy Macon is generally correct - the committee needn't respond and policy is written that way, to allow the committee to not respond when the best response is silence. That said, I (and by extension the rest of the committee) could and should have done better at responding on that talk page. I did read the comments and consider them in making my votes on the final decision but, what with one thing and another, I never responded. I do consider that a failing on my part, even if not a breach of policy. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: It's never too late. The objections revolved around three questions:
:::::# Why did you find Icewhiz "guilty" of certain rhetoric despite him having RS that validate it?
:::::# Why wasn't Volunteer Marek penalized more severely for his frequent abusive rhetoric (which he now continues,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=919232814&oldid=919231826&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=919399734&oldid=919394202&diffmode=source] violating not only CIVILITY/NPA/ASPERSIONS but also his I-ban)?
:::::# Why did you choose to narrow down the case to Icewhiz and VM, when you had plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by other editors as well?
::::: If ArbCom could (satisfactorily) answer these three questions, I'm sure it would put everyone's minds at ease. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 09:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{u|François Robere}}, I'll do my best to answer as an individual.
::::::# Icewhiz opinion and rhetoric wasn't quoting a reliable source, nor was it in editing an article. Instead it was in the middle of a discussion, of his opinion. As such, sources, reliable or not, are not part of it. What's more, Arbcom does not deal with content disputes as it is not qualified to do so - but rather behavioural ones. Icewhiz's behaviour, exemplified in those diffs, but also more generally was clearly unacceptable.
::::::# Both were iBanned, and topic banned from the area. I believe that was sufficient to allow the area to move forward
::::::# When it came down to it, removing those two from the area, along with iBanning from each other seemed to be sufficient on an individual basis. The area already had access to DS and with the additional sourcing requirement, I believe the area could move forward.
::::::We've had cases before where our decision weren't sufficient, and it may be that Arbcom needs to revisit the area - but I'd like to see how things have settled first. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 09:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks. I have strong reservations about all of these, but they can wait. In the meanwhile I'll tell you what happened in the time since the case closed, just to give you an idea of how well your formulation worked: two editors from related topic areas were banned for related offenses (Paul Siebert at AE, and Sir Joseph at ANI), one editor from the topic area is facing multiple sanctions at ANI (Xx236), one editor has violated his I-ban (Volunteer Marek), one editor was blocked (Icewhiz), and one editor - that of the ''Signpost'' - snubbed a scoop because he was afraid of sanctions - all in the span of two weeks. ''Success!'' [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 15:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::I realize that you are being sarcastic, but what you describe actually ''is'' "success". If ANI can handle a situation, as it did with Sir Joseph, then AE and Arbcom should not take the case. If AE can handle a situation, as it did with Paul Siebert, then Arbcom should not take the case. Arbcom took the Icewhiz case because neither ANI or AE is set up to deal with evidence that cannot be revealed, and offwiki harassment is one of the most common cases where evidence cannot be revealed -- we don't want to leave any clue as to who Icewhiz harassed or the nature of that harassment. Knowing that multiple arbs, elected to do just that, looked at the evidence is enough. ANI and AE are more open; you and I can review the evidence behind the decision. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 21:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: Indeed I am, but I'm not referring to Icewhiz's infini-ban, but to the ArbCom case: there ArbCom had a chance to deal with several problems at once, but instead it chose to focus almost exclusively on Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek as a sort of "silver bullet". Commentators (including myself) warned that this wasn't enough, and the "action" in the TA over the past weeks shows they (or we) were right. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 11:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
:: Regarding "ignoring the mob", I wouldn't express it like that as editors are entitled to state their opinions. However it is completely obvious that people who disagree with an arbcom decision will be far more motivated to write about it than people who are satisfied with the decision. It is faulty reasoning to interpret a bunch of complaints as indicating a community consensus. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 11:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
===$0.02===
I have a request for those who wish to come to dispute resolution venues and drama boards with complaints of antisemitism.
I am a fully paid-up card-carrying goy, and definitely a social justice warrior. I have exactly zero patience with holocaust denial and would gleefully ban every neo-Nazi from Wikipedia in an eyeblink. So why do you think you are failing to convince me, and others like me, of the "obvious" anti-Semitism you keep reporting?
I can tell you how it feels from my side. I see two editors asserting that X incident is either an example of the subversion of Poles by the Nazis, or an example of Polish anti-Semitism, and neither will accept anything other than A or B, black or white. When I read the sources I see the same facts interpreted one way by one set of scholars and another way by another set of scholars. Admins try not to pick sides, but we don't like bigots overmuch. Anyone who uses the n-word is out, pronto. We look for obvious bigotry - racial slurs and the like, - and deal with it. But intractable disputes between mutually irreconcilable interpretations of the same facts, are not a thing we can deal with, certainly not by taking an administrative view of which side is right.
So we have areas where we used to be a model for tense but respectful collaboration (e.g. around Israel-Palestine), with obvious trolls unceremoniously ejected, and we can't seem to get the same sort of environment around Poland. It's not due to nationalism (that applies far more to Israel-Palestine), so is it an effect of the increasingly angry and polarised world we live in? You've got to be aware that being Jewish doesn't get you a free pass, that the [[Jewish Internet Defense Force]] and other groups have caused us huge problems in the past with the assertion that anything other than uncritical support for Israel is anti-Semitism, so you must know that we are treading a tightrope.
When you come to ANI with a complaint of "obvious" anti-Semitism that seems to be based on a difference over interpretation of the same facts by different sources, you're going to end up with yet another angry and inconclusive mess. When you complain that X said that your mother smelled of elderberries, you're going to have to explain, for an audience largely comprised of goyim who know nothing about the underlying subject matter and have a strong incentive not to change that, why that is actually a slur rather than mere vulgar abuse. Right now the majority of these complaints come across not as asking for help, which is all we can offer, but as demanding support in a holy cause. The admin approach to fractious partisans is generally to drag them apart or block them all rather than decide that one group or the other is objectively right, because the experience of years says that in most such disputes it's neither. "X called me Y!" often turns out to be "X said Y, which I interpret as Y' and will not accept it was intended in any other way". Opinion is stated as fact. One or other competing interpretation is asserted as ineffable truth. We have discretionary sanctions because admins and arbcom ''can't'' settle content disputes, we can only ban the people who make them disruptive. Very often, these people are in the right. We have banned at least three staunch science advocates that I know of, defenders of our medical content against woo-mongers. Doesn't matter. If they cause more drama than they are worth, they go.
We're not content managers, we're janitors, or maybe traffic police (though we do try not to summarily execute people for driving while black).
I guess what I am saying is that you're not helping your cause by berating those who fail to take the "obviously correct" side. In the same way that the best article writing involves putting yourself in the shoes of the opposition, you'll probably have a lot more success if you remember that we're just folks. I can't explain to a Brexiteer why Brexit is a catastrophically stupid idea, and I can't get them to explain to me what, exactly, the EU does that makes their lives miserable enough to suffer a huge drop in GDP and the loss of free movement. So in general ''I don't try''. You, however, ''are'' trying to get us involved in your dispute, on your side. The burden is on you to lead us along the way. Often you want sanctions and reprimands for what look to any non-partisan non subject expert onlooker like perfectly reasonable representations of perfectly reasonable sources. We don't do content disputes. You need to work out a way of settling the content issue and separating out behaviour so it's sufficiently clear that we can see the good guys and the bad guys, rather than a sack of ferrets fighting tooth and claw. Jimmy, tell me if I am getting this wrong. I have tried to see things from these guys' perspective but I can't get past the fact that they always seem to be trying to recruit me tot heir side rather than ask for help with a specific and well-defined problem that I can fix with the admin's limited toolbag. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 21:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:What is your view of [[Special:Permalink/917700301#"Poles" before "Jews"|these diffs]] (the "Poles" before "Jews" section)? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 22:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|Levivich}}, it will take a while to review them all, but to pick one that immediately stood out: {{tq|you changed "During World War II Poland was the main scene of the Holocaust ..." to "During World War II Poland was the main scene of the genocide of Poles by Nazi Germany as well as Holocaust ..." }} Can you see how, to a Pole, that would be an important distinction? Do you think Poland, without Nazi invasion, would have undertaken genocide of the Jews? [Edit: Tired, missed the fact he substituted Poles]. You are good at compromise wording, what did you suggest instead? Incidentally, your question to molobo was correct, and his less than perfect English is a significant part of the problem IMO. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 22:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Levivich}} It's rather straightforward-in context of the Holocaust Jews were the main victims and should be mentioned first. In context of overall genocidal policies within Poland carried out by Nazi Germany(in whcih Poles and Jews were classified as subhumans fit for slavery and eventual extermination) Poles consituted the largest group affected and should be mentioned first, with other groups mentioned after the main group later. So, in texts about Holocaust Jews should be mentione first, but if we are writing about genocide carried out by Nazi in the whole country, not just Holocuast-then we should start with the largest group affected. If we are writing about Poland than it is rather self explanatory that treatment of Poles by Nazi Germany will be described first.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 07:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::::Since I've been working on this page occasionally, my reading is this: a person landing on this entry *today* would expect to read first what the situation is *today*. With over 94% of the population self-declaring their ethnicity as Polish, it doesn't make sense to list Poles as the primary victims of racism in Poland today. Readers might also expect a bit of history on "racism in Poland", including of course the Holocaust, the pogroms between the wars (and before WWI) which led many Jews to leave the country (the [[Lwów pogrom (1918)]] for example). Before that, the Jews were kicked out of Silesia, most major cities (Warsaw, Krakow) and, in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, were largely protected by the absentee landowners ([[szlachta]]), on whose estates they lived, being called upon to collect rent from the (Ruthenian / Ukrainian) peasants... which put them very much on the front line during the [[Khmelnytsky Uprising]]. The claim that the Poles were the primary victim of racism / ethnic discrimination just doesn't stand up for any period of time based on the scholarly sources I've read. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be ''some'' mention of the history of Nazi racial ideology concerning Slavs. The "in Poland" part of "Racism in Poland" makes it such that the [[Katyn massacre]] is probably off-topic (and it is currently not mentioned in the entry if I remember correctly). On the other hand, the grisly fate of Poles in German agricultural workcamps *is* mentioned, as it should be.🌿 [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | t]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|c]]</sup> 10:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: Right. So the topic is racism in ''modern'' Poland, and the history of racism in Poland is a different topic complicated by the involvement of the Nazis. That makes sense to me. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 11:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC) {{small|deleted comment restored by 🌿 [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | t]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|c]]</sup> 13:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC). . . . (I don't understand the allusion to the Mongols below, but there seems to have been an edit clash.)}}
:::::: Yes. We've had a discussion about it and we reached more or less the conclusion SashiRolls reached.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racism_in_Poland#Scope_of_this_page] There's another problem, though: Molobo has been inserting some content that pertains to 18th-19th cen. proto/racism in parts of Poland occupied by Prussia. I'm not entirely sure that belongs in an article on Poland proper, or that it is enough of a justification to re-order the entire article. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 15:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::: And what was the outcome of the RfC, and how many people participated? <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 22:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: It wasn't an RfC, just a regular vote. It was 4:3 (4:2 discounting an IP editor) for trimming the article - three for one formulation, one for another, but all in agreement on the main proposition. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 14:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::Actually I count
*1. Support- modern Poland after 1992
*2. Oppose
*3. Exclude WW2 include other periods
*4. Oppose-Exclude anything that is not backed up by sources to be racially motivated.
*5. Oppose
*6. Exclude wartime acts by foreign actors; mention those by domestic actor; include everything else
*7. Support-for modern Poland only after 1992
*8. The article "Racism in Poland" must cover ALL the history
*9. Support for modern Poland after 1992
So total is:
*3 votes for modern Poland after 1992
*4 votes opposing
*1 vote for exclusion of WW2
*1 vote for exclusion of foreign racism in WW2
Feel free to double check[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 15:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
: I have. There are only 7-8 votes there (a technicality, but of the IPs didn't vote):
* 3 x Post-1919, brief mention of WWII, some background info (FR, Icewhiz, MVBW)
* 1 x Post-1989 (Slatersteven, per MVBW)
* 3-4 x objections (IP, Molobo, Malick, IP)
:So depending on how you consider the IPs, we have a majority for ''at least'' cutting back on anything from before 1919. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
::4 vs 3 is majority against, as is 4 vs 1.Sorry FR.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 15:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
::: "Post-1989" (ie nothing before 1989) includes by definition "post-1919" (ie nothing before 1919), hence the four votes. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 11:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
:The events is 13th century weren't really motivated by racism though but by religious strife.Also Poles were primary victims of racism in Prussian Partition and largest group facing racism in Poland under Nazi German rule.That being said, nobody disputes that Holocaust happened, or that Jews faced immediate extermination...it's just that the article covers more than just this event.[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 11:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
*"Insert inspirational message here about how you can't please everyone and about how we can't ask more of site staff than to act judiciously and justly."[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 22:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:: Yeah, sorry. But it pisses me off that despite a bazillion words at ANI I still struggle to see this as anything other than a cat fight. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 22:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::That was my TLDR agreeing with you.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 23:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
*I've kept well away from this dispute (and I'm keeping it that way) but I just want to fully support those very wise words from [[user:JzG|Guy]] just up there ^. When you're deeply involved in an issue in a personal way, it can be very difficult (perhaps even impossible) to step back from it and try to see it from the outside. But that is exactly what we have to do. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 11:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
* Thanks for the question. I tried to answer exactly that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fran%C3%A7ois_Robere/sandbox/Dealing_with_racism_on_Wikipedia here], but as you may know it went sideways,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=919231826&oldid=919224470][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Dealing_with_racism_on_Wikipedia] so I'll try to rephrase it:
: The main problem has to do with recognition: What admins seem to generally expect is the sort of loud-mouthed vandalism akin to a graffiti of a swastika on a synagogue's front door; what you then miss is more subtle expressions of bias and prejudice, like an editor ''routinely promoting the stereotype of [[Judeo-Communism]] using 3rd rate sources''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=919248747&oldid=919243688&diffmode=source] In pure terms it's as [https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/prejudice prejudiced] and [https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/bias biased] as any other neo-Nazi idea, it's just expressed more ''subtly'' and ''politely'', so editors who are not intimately acquainted with the subject tend to miss it. And yet, with some editors we can show that this is a ''pattern'', including source selection and even terminology. In general there's a lot of subtlety in racism, but if you're not aware of it you won't necessarily recognize it (see "[[dog-whistling]]" as an example). Now the question is "why won't you be aware of these various expressions of prejudice?" I suspect the answer has to do with the community's demographics: mostly male, from majority-white, majority-Christian, Western countries. Most probably have no first-person experience of being routinely or significantly prejudiced against (ie. in a manner that is life-changing) - they probably don't know how it is "to walk in another person's shoes"[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MYHBrJIIFU] - so they have a hard time acknowledging ''common prejudice'' even when it's right in front of them. What do you think? What's your experience? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 15:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:: That's not really true, though. What we do need is to be shown a clear an obvious difference between the ''behaviour'' of the parties. Remember, we do not are not arbiters of content disputes, we expect you to fix that, we just help to maintain an environment in which that can happen. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 22:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::: Oh, but you are. If I wrote something that was ''clearly racist'' you would delete it and I'd get blocked. Why? Because ''you'' would be able to recognize it as racist. But what if I "dog-whistled"? Without thorough understanding of the subject you'd have no idea, and you'l just say it's a "content issue" and "deal with it yourself". [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 08:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{re|JzG}} That is correct, however, there is one important point admins (as whole) seem to miss: if some formal criterion becomes a sole indicator of performance, it stops working. If admin's vision of a good environment is that environment where nobody calls each other "Holocaust deniers", such an environment may become friendly to civil POV pushers. If admins see every dispute that cannot be described in 500 words and 20 diffs as "content dispute" that means good faith users are left vis-a-vis with civil POV pushers, who feel totally safe as soon as they avoid making certain statements.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 07:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: {{ec}} Also, false accusations of dog whistling when none was intended ''do'' exist. As does intentional dog whistling followed by claims that none was intended. If I see someone who only sees dog whistling by one side of the ongoing Team Red vs. Team Blue dumpster fire, I tend to ignore them. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: We recognise dog whistles too. Nobody I know had any difficulty understanding what Trump meant when he told the Squad to "go back where they came from". But some people are hypersensitive, and some dog whistles require extensive knowledge of the content area before they are recognisable. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 10:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: That's exactly the point: you know that one not only because Trump is a complete idiot, but also because ''you're exposed to that culture''. Could you recognize "dog whistles" from cultures you're not exposed to on a daily basis? Let's take for example the simplest possible one: "them". Who does "them" refer to in different cultures? A thousand different people? More? But if you're not familiar with the context, how would you know?
::::: Now imagine this isn't a single example (eg. "X is racist, here are five sources") - and certainly not one as obvious as Trump's - but something that ''permeates the entire discussion'' (which is what the second paragraph of my little essay was meant to convey) - not a ''term'', but an ''idea''; how can you even begin to explain, let alone ''convince'' someone who isn't familiar with the subject? Now, I'll be happy to give you a whole bunch of diffs to show you how some editors ''consistently apply antisemitic stereotypes'',[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=919248747&oldid=919243688&diffmode=source] but the moment I do so the discussion will launch itself to AE (just as it has before, even when I didn't name any names). And so we're stuck in a vicious circle: I can't explain it because I'll get sanctioned if I do; if I don't explain it the admins won't understand it; and if they don't understand it they'll sanction me for raising it; so why are you surprised no one is convinced? That's why I think only outside involvement (eg. [[diversity training]]) could help here. Under the current conditions - without using explicit terms, without giving clear examples, and in a hostile and short-winded environment like ANI or AE - it's practically impossible to do that. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::: {{ping|JzG}} Told you.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Fran%C3%A7ois_Robere] [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 11:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
=== Omer Ben Jaakov on KL Warsaw, at Haaretz ===
Today on [[Haaretz]]:
{{quote|For over 15 years, false claims that thousands of Poles were gassed to death in Warsaw were presented as fact. Haaretz reveals they are just the tip of an iceberg of a widespread Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists.|{{Cite news |url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-fake-nazi-death-camp-wikipedia-s-longest-hoax-exposed-1.7942233 |title=The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed |last=Benjakob |first=Omer |date=2019-10-03 |work=Haaretz |access-date=2019-10-03 |language=en}}}}
[[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:The article is amusing as nobody here wrote about the KL Warschau in any significant extent, and the article itself seems to be unaware that Nuremberg Trials declared that both Jewish and Polish nations faced genocide(" They conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others. "[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/count3.asp The trial of German major war criminals : proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg Germany Indictment : Count Three].I think it represents more of the current worldview in certain parts of Isreali society that leads to these endless historical conflicts in both media and public space, than accurate show of problems with Wikipedia.For the record I don't recall anyone objecting to correcting the article as long as it sticked to the facts.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 22:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:: I don't find it even mildly amusing. The article is about Holocaust revisionism first and foremost, and mentions you, Piotrus, Volunteer Marek, PoeticBent and the EEML by name. It includes the opinions of two world-class researchers - [[Jan Grabowski (historian)|Jan Grabowski]] and Havi Dreifuss (of [[Tel Aviv University|TAU]] and [[Yad Vashem]]), who I trust know much more than you about the Nuremberg trials. Grabowski, as you know, is not Israeli, and Yad Vashem's reputation is beyond reproach. ''Haaretz'' is a [[paper of record]], known for thorough reporting and open discussion. Before you make insinuations, make sure you have your sources in order. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 08:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::For the last time. Stop. Referring to me on this topic. Stop making attacks on me.<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> 19:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::VM, with due respect, that FR's statement is in a full accordance with our content and even BLP policy. Just ask yourself, if the statement:
:::::"''The article is about Holocaust revisionism first and foremost, and mentions John Smith (''a living person, -P.S.'') by name.''"
::::is acceptable in the article space? Obviously, yes. Then why cannot the same be said about you (especially, taking into account that VM is hardly your real full name)?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 23:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::: I have to say I am rather disappointed in [[Haaretz]]. This story is very one sided - effectively might have been written by a certain banned editor we discuss here. I was interviewed for it shortly before it went to press, and asked to be allowed to review the final piece for errors, etc. They did not do it, and so their piece is quite full of both factual errors, and it misquotes me as well :( I wrote an email to Haaretz with corrections, but I have no idea if it will do any good, the account is very one sided and emotional, and clearly has an agenda :( It is also interesting to note how it dwells on an ancient history (an arbcom case from 10 years ago) but not much on this one. We are dealing with [[Poisoning the well]] and harassment not only on Twitter, but even in media I thought was actually reputable (I guess now I'll know better). [[Fake news]] era, I guess. In either case, I find this article another nail in said editor's coffin; further off-wiki attempts to harass those one disagrees with are unlikely to lead to revision of the indef ban, which at first I thought was rather unreasonable, but the more I look at the evidence (tweets, now this) the more sad I feel. [[User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_most_dangerous_of_mindsets|"True believers"]] are not only scary, but plain and simply detrimental to this project; they will fight tooth and nail until until the bitter end (and in some cases, continue with socking or off wiki harassment and such). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 09:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: The Haaretz story has one primary source: Icewhiz. Of course it's one-sided, what else would you expect? It also makes a few good points, but doesn't, in the end ,help us untangle the difference between actual revisionism and Polish nationalism - I suspect there is a Venn diagram with some overlap but it's not a single circle. This issue of bias in published sources is not Wikipedia's problem alone, of course. Until the heroic Deborah Lipstadt stood up to be counted, David Irving was accepted as a legitimate scholar in the real world. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 10:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: It's not what I would've hoped for, but having some attention drawn to the subject is better than no attention at all. If you were misquoted, feel free to send you me your version of the story - I can't do anything about it, but I'm open to reading others' accounts. As for the EEML - it's old, but it ''is'' the history of the topic area, and I occasionally wonder myself how some editors who were involved there were allowed to continue editing.
::::: Two things must be said for the story: a) OBJ verified each and every claim, and where he didn't it's noted; b) he got in touch with two major scholars, and they said what should be pretty clear to everyone: this topic area has major issues, which the community hasn't addressed properly.
::::: There are arguments for and against the claim that this is "poisoning the well". I think in this case it's worth it: Wikipedia needs a wake up call. This isn't slander - it's an actual problem that is brought to light. It's very much ''not fake''.
::::: As for "untangling the difference" - that we cannot do without a lot more work, ''or'' without changing the community process (or without replacing the community, which looks like the easiest option of the three). At the moment we simply don't have a process in place where, for example, we can invite Lipstadt, or Dreifuss, or Grabowski to review articles and tell us what they think; and without a lot of reading, there's no way a small but topically-well-read group of editors can explain all of this to the broader community (that is, indeed, exactly the problem we've had in most of the 11 ANI and AE discussions we had here). ArbCom was our "last hope" in this respect, but as others had anticipated they did very little. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::The ''Haaretz'' article gives the impression that the "conspiracy theory" parts of the history of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_concentration_camp Warsaw concentration camp] remained unchallenged in the article until last month. However, the article's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Warsaw_concentration_camp talkpage] shows that was not the case; in the first two years of the life of the article, the controversies were raised [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Warsaw_concentration_camp#No_heading_1 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Warsaw_concentration_camp#No_heading_2 here]. Major sections of text were deleted by K.e.coffman on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_concentration_camp&type=revision&diff=895624424&oldid=895536012 5th] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_concentration_camp&type=revision&diff=895717403&oldid=895627106 6th] of May. Subsequently, Icewhiz obtained a copy of a long [https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n09/christian-davies/under-the-railway-line London Review of Books article] of 09 May 2019, which describes the work done by Zygmunt Walkowski, started in 2010 and finished in 2017, which demonstrated that there were no gas chambers at the camp. Using that as a source, he further redacted the article. Calling that the exposure of a hoax on Wikipedia, further, the exposure of a hoax by a particular editor, is somewhat of an exagerration. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← [[User talk:ZScarpia | ZScarpia]] </span> 23:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
[[Il Post]] ([https://www.ilpost.it/2019/10/04/bufala-campo-sterminio-varsavia-wikipedia/ Italian], [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilpost.it%2F2019%2F10%2F04%2Fbufala-campo-sterminio-varsavia-wikipedia%2F English Gtranslation]) picked up the Haaretz story and sums up the issue as: {{tq|The revisionist narrative claims that the Polish population in general - and not just the Jewish population of the country - was among the main victims of the Nazi occupation. Efforts to increase the estimate of the number of Poles who died during the so-called Polocaust are also part of the attempt, to minimize the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust and to alter, in general, various historical events.}} Also at Italian online journal [[it:Open (giornale)|Open]] [https://www.open.online/2019/10/04/quel-campo-di-concentramento-che-piace-a-nazionalisti-e-ai-negazionisti-della-shoah/]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 16:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:''the revisionist narrative claims that the Polish population in general - and not just the Jewish population of the country - was among the main victims of the Nazi occupation.''That's quite perplexing claim that isn't representative of the mainstream historiography or international law.As mentioned above Nuremberg Trials Indictment Count Three stated:''They conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others.''[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/count3.asp] Historians are of the same view: [[Timothy Snyder]] states: "When the Germans shot tens of thousands of Poles in 1944, with the intention of making sure that Warsaw would never rise again, that was genocide, too. Far less dramatic measures, such as the kidnapping and Germanisation of Polish children, were also, by the legal definition, genocide." Norman M. Naimark states in Genocide: A World History published Oxford University Press:"Hitler's genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews". I rather doubt that Timothy Snyder, or Norman Naimark are revisionists, nor that Nuremberg Trial judges were revisionists. That that the death toll of Poles at KL Warschau was inflated by fringe historian to 200,000(in reality 10,000 Poles were executed) doesn't change the fact of genocical nature of Nazi policies towards the Poles, and claiming that Poles weren't among main victims of Nazis in Poland itself goes against mainstream history, as short glance at [[Nazi crimes against the Polish nation]] will demonstrate.To conclude, yes some fringe researches exaggerated the death toll at KL Warschau, but to claim Nazi Germany didn't mass murder Poles in genocide goes against mainstream accepted research and legal verdicts at Nuremberg Trials.
:--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 19:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::Nobody disputes that Nazis killed many Poles. But Poles were not the primary target of Nazi's genocidal policies; Jews were. [[Nazi crimes against the Polish nation]] needs a lot of cleaning up. For example, its description of Auschwitz as "the main concentration camp for Poles" is inaccurate and not neutral. Compare with [[Auschwitz]]. Changing articles to say that Poles were the primary victims of Nazis is revisionism. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 19:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::''Nobody disputes that Nazis killed many Poles''This is not what I stated, Poles were targets of genocide as well, as stated by legal verdicts of Nuremberg Trial and respectable historians.Nobody disputes that Jews were victims of Nazi genocide and faced the most immediate and intense extermination, but this doesn't mean that other groups weren't victims of Nazi Germany's genocide as well, and Poles certainly were one of the main targets.''For example, its description of Auschwitz as "the main concentration camp for Poles" is inaccurate and not neutral'' IIRC it housed 150,000 ethnic Poles till 1941, if there was a bigger concentration camp for Poles I confess I don't know and would have to research this, if you if any other camp housed more Poles, feel free to add this information.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 20:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::About 960,000 Jews killed at [[Auschwitz]]; 75,000 non-Jewish Poles. Auschwitz wasn't the "main concentration camp for Poles"; it wasn't "for Poles" at all, it was for Jews. 960k out of 1.1 million deaths at Auschwitz were Jews. The main concentration camps for Poles were [[Polenlager]]s, and Auschwitz wasn't one of them. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 01:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
::::"It wasn't 'for Poles' at all, it was for Jews." Do take more care with the statement of fact. Although an extermination complex whose main victims were Jews was later built, as its original purpose, Auschwitz was "for" the general Polish population and Poles could well have formed the largest group among its inmates throughout its existence.
::::From "KL, A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps" (2015) by Nikolaus Wachsmann:
::::* "By early 1942, Auschwitz had become the largest concentration camp of all (except for Mauthausen), with nearly twelve thousand men locked up inside. More than three-quarters of these men were Poles, as the camp’s main purpose remained the battle against the conquered population. Today Auschwitz is synonymous with the Holocaust, but it was built to impose German rule over Poland."
::::* "The new camps contributed to the spread of wartime terror. As we have seen, Auschwitz was designed to combat dissent and opposition among the Polish population."
::::* "Auschwitz officially operated from June 14, 1940, when the first mass transport of Polish inmates arrived: 728 men from Tarnów prison near Krakow, across the border in the General Government. Most of them were young men, including students and soldiers, accused of a wide range of anti-German activities."
::::* "Several of his lieutenants, including Camp Inspector Glücks, championed a new KL “for the East,” to hold down the Polish population. After much deliberation, the SS settled on a site in the provincial Polish border town Oświęcim, southeast of Katowice (Kattowitz)."
::::* "Nor were concentration camps synonymous with the Holocaust, although their histories are intertwined. First, anti-Jewish terror largely unfolded outside the KL; it was not until the final year of World War II that most of the surviving Jews found themselves inside a concentration camp. The significant majority of the up to six million Jews murdered under the Nazi regime perished in other places, shot in ditches and fields across eastern Europe, or gassed in distinct death camps like Treblinka, which operated separately from the KL. Second, the concentration camps always targeted various victim groups, and except for a few weeks in late 1938, Jews did not make up a majority among registered prisoners. For most of the Third Reich, in fact, they formed a relatively small part, and even after numbers rose sharply in the second half of the war, Jews did not constitute more than perhaps thirty percent of the registered inmate population."
::::* "The SS concentration camps, in turn, have become closely identified with Auschwitz and its Jewish victims, obscuring other camps and other inmates. A German poll found that Auschwitz is by far the most recognized KL and that the vast majority of respondents associate the camps with the persecution of Jews; by contrast, less than ten percent named Communists, criminals, or homosexuals as victims. In popular memory, then, the concentration camps, Auschwitz, and the Holocaust have merged into one. But Auschwitz was never synonymous with the Nazi concentration camps. True, as the largest and most lethal camp by far, it occupied a special place in the KL system. But there was always more to this system. Auschwitz was closely integrated into the wider KL network, and it was preceded and shaped by other camps. Dachau, for example, was more than seven years old when Auschwitz was established, and clearly influenced it."
::::<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← [[User talk:ZScarpia | ZScarpia]] </span> 12:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
::Low quality journalistic echo effect is already in progress. Nobody is trying to inflate the number of Polish casualties, nor deflate the Jewish number. Well, nobody in the mainstream, and no estabilished editor here, some fringe theories pushed by SPAs or such do occasionally arise and it is good to keep them in check. As I said several times, I wonder if we should stub [[Polocaust]]. Getting a new article would be preferable to continued bickering and beating a dead horse here... --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 01:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=909516826] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=910556008] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=910856103] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)&diff=prev&oldid=917661972] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=724543718] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_crimes_against_the_Polish_nation&diff=910691735&oldid=909536776] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupation_of_Poland_(1939–1945)&diff=910849716&oldid=909822318] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Poland&diff=910850298&oldid=909669504] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generalplan_Ost&diff=911238282&oldid=911156835] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=909516161] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=912955251&oldid=912876454] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=914598019&oldid=914276641] are all edits suggesting Nazis targetted non-Jewish Poles as much or more than Jews. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 01:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
::: I'm counting at least six discussions trying to discredit a particular (award-winning) historian for his estimate of the number of Jews killed by, or because of Poles,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_1#Jan_Grabowski%27s_estimate_from_%22Hunt_for_Jews%22][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_5#Should_Grabowski_be_removed_?][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_8#Grabowski_(again)][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_11#RfC:_Reliable_sources][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_13#Remove_details_of_Kumoch%27s_critique][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_14#Short_re-haul_of_Grabowski_paragraph] plus many others in the respective TPs of his[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)] and the particular book's.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hunt_for_the_Jews] [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 14:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::This has been discussed numerous times and Grabowskis number not only has been rejected by other scholars, he himself withdrew from the numbers.I suggest you think carefully about reopening content disputes led by Icewhiz on numerous pages.I also suggest you remove the aspersion that editors were trying to "discredit" him.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 16:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::: This is exactly what I mean. Not only do other editors read his comments very differently than you do,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust_in_Poland/Archives/2019/August#%22x%22_times_%22y%22_makes_200,000:_or,_Jan_Grabowski_as_scholar] but the overall reception that he received was that of praise, and [[Hunt for the Jews|one of his books]] even won the [[Yad Vashem]] literary award. When you fail to mention any of it, despite it being mentioned to more times than I'd wish to count, it kind of gives the impression you don't like the guy... [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 11:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
::::Levivich-nobody here disputes that Auschwitz was primarily for Jews and overwhelming majority of deaths were Jewish.That it also held largest number of Polish prisoners out of all the camps is however also correct from what I understand.The Polenlager(which I informed you about) were solely for Poles but their population was small compared to Auschwitz.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 09:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Nope, Jews faces the most intense extermination by Nazis,even if they weren't the largest group affected. You reading into this this more than there is to it.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 09:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:"Poles could well have formed the largest group among its inmates throughout its existence" ... "Jews faces the most intense extermination by Nazis,even if they weren't the largest group affected" ... this is what historical revisionism looks like. “Largest group”...PLEASE. The “largest group affected” by the Nazis were '''right-handed people'''. Did you know that? The vast majority of people killed by the Nazis were right-handed; left-handed people made up a much smaller proportion of victims. Almost all the prisoners at Auschwitz were right-handed. And in the Polenlagers, too!
:And what’s more: the primary victims of Nazis were '''Europeans'''. Yes, everyone knows that virtually all concentration camp prisoners were European.
:Indeed, it seems obvious that '''the largest group facing genocide by the Nazis were right-handed Europeans'''. It was right-handed Europeans who were most affected by Nazi policies, and most Nazi victims — both inside and outside of Poland — were right-handed Europeans. Therefore, we can write that "Poland was the main scene of the Nazi genocide of right-handed Europeans, including Poles, Jews, and others." Right?
:Wrong. 75% of Europe’s Jews were killed. Not 75% of Polish people. Not 75% of right-handed people. It was a systematic genocide of Jews and specifically Jews. Claiming that any other group was the "main" or "primary" or "largest" victim of Nazis is historical revisionism. It’s just not true. Poles were the largest affected in Poland is like saying Europeans were the largest group affected in Europe. Duh! Saying non-Jewish Poles were the largest group affected in Poland is only true in the same way that saying right-handed people were the largest group affected, or two-legged people were the largest group affected. Technically true but meaningless, and misleading when made the focus of an article. Don’t try to change World War II into a Nazi crime against Poles as opposed to Jews. Don’t try to invent a Nazi genocide of Poles to rival the Holocaust. The consensus of sources don’t say that, and neither should Wikipedia. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 15:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
::Before making accusations of Holocaust revisionism or denial, you should straighten out your own facts and arguments.
::In my previous comment, by quoting Nikolaus Wachsmann's "KL, A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps", I addressed the claim that Auschwitz "wasn't 'for Poles' at all, it was for Jews." You haven't repeated the claim, but you have quoted part of my comment, that "Poles could well have formed the largest group among its inmates throughout its existence," as an example of what "historical revisionism looks like." Please re-read the very first quotation from Wachsmann: "'''By early 1942''', Auschwitz had become the largest concentration camp of all (except for Mauthausen), with nearly twelve thousand men locked up inside. '''More than three-quarters of these men were Poles''', as the camp’s main purpose remained the battle against the conquered population." I think that justifies what I wrote. Do you have any contradicting evidence?
::<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← [[User talk:ZScarpia | ZScarpia]] </span> 18:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:::I'm sure '''more than three-quarters of these men were right-handed''', and '''more than three-quarters of these men were European''', as well. [[Auschwitz]] had 1.3 million prisoners: over a million Jews, 150,000 non-Jewish Poles. Auschwitz was "for Jews", not for non-Jewish Poles, not "for Poles", and yes, many of the Jews were Poles, and also European and right-handed, but that doesn't make Auschwitz "for Poles" or "for Europeans" or "for right-handed people", and neither Wachsmann nor any other historian paints it that way. Saying that Auschwitz was mainly for Poles, or that Poles were the largest group facing Nazi genocide, is [[WP:SYNTH]]. The consensus of reliable sources do not say this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
'' Claiming that any other group was the "main" or "primary" or "largest" victim of Nazis is historical revisionism.''
'' Don’t try to invent a Nazi genocide of Poles to rival the Holocaust''
Here is what Nuremberg trials stated
* That Haaretz article is shocking. If true (a big "if") then it is the biggest embarassment ever to hit Wikipedia on multiple levels. I have no personal familiarity with Icewhiz, but if half of what it says about him is true then Wikipedia and especially Arbcom has egg on its face. This one isn't going away, people. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 01:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:: Icewhiz isn't the issue. This is the issue:
:: {{quote|Everything that is related to negative treatment of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust is now being distorted and manipulated – with the goal of promoting a false narrative and sowing confusion on English Wikipedia.|source=[[Jan Grabowski (historian)|Jan Grabowski]], Prof. of History at the University of Ottawa<ref name="Haaretz 2019-10-07"/>}}
:: {{quote|I saw articles changing dramatically, in front of my students' very eyes... Holocaust revisionism in Wikipedia deserves to be studied in its own right.|source=Havi Dreifuss, Prof. of History at [[Tel Aviv University]] and head of [[Yad Vashem]]'s Center for Research on the Holocaust in Poland<ref name="Haaretz 2019-10-07">{{Cite news |url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-fake-nazi-death-camp-wikipedia-s-longest-hoax-exposed-1.7942233 |title=The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed |last=Benjakob |first=Omer |date=2019-10-03 |work=Haaretz |access-date=2019-10-04 |language=en}}</ref>}}
:: [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 14:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:::But we're not going to resolve content issues here. All this reinventing the wheel on the underlying dispute is just venting. A more practical way of using this space is to discuss whether it is correct that Icewhiz uncovered, or helped uncover, a major hoax that lasted for many years, and whether that has not been given sufficient weight in determining penalties. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 15:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: {{re|Coretheapple}} I don't see it as a content issue, but as a "conduct" and community issue. Not only did that stay "in the open" for 15 years, but many of the same issues (if not as concentrated in a single article) have been raised repeatedly over the last year and a half, up to and including at ArbCom, with slow and wanting change. AFAIC the community needs an overhaul of its review mechanisms. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: I think you make some good points here. There is no question that Wikipedia is getting complacent and that change is so out of the question it is ridiculed. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 13:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
::Grabowski isn't without controversy:
''In December 2018 Grabowski co-wrote a Haaretz opinion piece criticizing Israeli historian Daniel Blatman, professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for accepting the post of chief historian at the newly-formed Warsaw Ghetto Museum, in Warsaw, Poland, and thus agreeing to be "the poster boy of [Polish] state authorities bent on turning back the clock and distorting the history of the Holocaust".[53] In January 2019 Blatman responded in Haaretz that, while the four scholars, in their research, had provided some valuable insights into involvement in the Holocaust by parts of the Polish population, they had locked into this historical outlook and, unable to move beyond it, had turned it into a "holy crusade with the mission of confronting Polish society with its past in the Holocaust and emphasi[zing] Polish antisemitism"; Blatman wrote that Grabowski and his co-authors do not give due weight to the terror and violence perpetrated by the Germans, and to the deaths of Poles, who themselves suffered under German occupation. Blatman concluded that the four researchers' criticism of him was motivated not so much by historical questions as by their fear of losing an aspirational monopoly on the historical debate, and pointed out that, while they accused him of collaborating with Poland's "nationalist government", they themselves rely, for their work, on funds received from that Polish government.''
I think it is also worth pointing out that Grabowski believes that there are "hundreds of Polish volunteers" that have been recruited by the Polish government to edit English Wikipedia. Given that there are only three or four actual Polish editors active in the topic area this seems to be very detached from reality, and should give a second thought before taking everything he claims as granted.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 15:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:I noticed that from 2 August 2019 - 2 October 2019, no fewer than 12 IPs adds tens of thousands of bytes to the talk page of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&offset=&limit=500&action=history Racism in Poland] to help you and Xx236 lobby for your concern that strong representation be given to racism against Ethnic Poles. Now it has since been suggested that many of the 12 IPs were in fact the same person, but someone who doesn't live on en.wp is not expected to know all about Wikipedia gaming behaviors. Incidentally, why have you never learned talk-page etiquette? (you've deleted replies, refuse to indent, sign your posts before the end...) You've been through 2 ArbCom cases now (EEML, Holocaust in Poland), one would think you would have caught on by now? 🌿 [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | t]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|c]]</sup> 20:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:If you believe I am associated in any way with these IP's feel free to ask for checkuser, I am not.Likewise if you have personal questions ask them on my talk page rather than here please.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 21:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
: {{tq|Grabowski isn't without controversy}} Ah, politics! How irrelevant. One "controversial" historian replying to another. You can hardly deal with nations' national ethos without being controversial to some degree.
: {{tq|Grabowski believes that there are "hundreds of Polish volunteers" that have been recruited by the Polish government to edit English Wikipedia.}} He said "volunteers", not "government recruits"; and the number likely comes from the fact that the EEML, at its haydai, numbered around a hundred editors. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 11:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
::LOL. Haaretz article cannot get some basic facts straight, but we should know better. ArbCom finding from ten years ago was that 17 (if I count correctly) people posted to that list. That article has quite a few of such glaring errors. I exchanged emails with the article's author, he is convinced that everyone listed in [[:Category:Polish Wikipedians]] is an active editor (and was ten years ago). When such amateurs try to understand Wikipedia, hilarious mistakes happen. Or less hilarious, as it this case. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 10:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::I agree that the report by Haaretz was an outright distortion, at least in the part that relates to EEML story and editing by specific contributors in WP. But you have made a serious mistake by agreeing to talk with Haaretz. They used you. This is something I have seen many times in Russian state-controlled media: they interview someone only to make him a glutton for punishment, frequently distort his words and distort everything. This is shame for Haaretz. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: And here you make a nasty accusation against a reporter for what is widely considered Israel's best newspaper - one that takes its cues from NYT, not RT - that is ''privately-owned'', and that regularly sheds light on even the darkest aspects of Israeli politics and policy. And by the way, that reporter also writes for ''Wired'', so it might be a two-for-one. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 15:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::Well, I am not interested in Israeli politics and I do not read Haaretz. I can only say this particular ''publication'' was an outright distortion with regard to the aspects I know much better than the author of the publication. Yes, I think it was worse than RT, somewhere at the level of domestic Russian propaganda television programs. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::: Perhaps. I found it too high as well, but you know how [[WP:SOURCE]] goes.
::: Regardless, I wouldn't say he's an "amateur" - he's been reporting on Wikipedia for at least a couple of years now, and has shown decent understand of its procedures and practices. It's true that Wikipedia has a long learning curve, though - I've been here for four or five years before I ever had to delve into half its policies... [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::{{re|Piotrus}} probably, I remembered something incorrectly (if I did, please, correct me), but I recall EEML members themselves believed some Russian Cabal existed, and even my name was mentioned (as I was told) in connection to my possible membership of that putative Cabal. Therefore, it is not a surprise that Grabowski made similar mistake regarding Polish users. That is just a demonstration of a very intense work Polish users are doing to promote (I do not say "push") some sort of ideas. When I find myself in a situation that my POV obviously wins in some dispute, I ask myself: "Stop. How can you be sure that, in the absence of serious opponents, you are sufficiently neutral? Maybe it makes sense to think about being devil's advocate for myself?"--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
{{od}}In general, regarding the Haaretz article, I would like to know your opinion about these general question:
:"''When some reliable source (or sources) writes about a coverage of some topic in Wikipedia, does it make sense to add a section "Coverage in Wikipedia" to the corresponding WP article?"
For example, if Haaretz (a reliable source) writes about a coverage of the Holocaust in the [[Holocaust in Poland]], article, can we add a section to that article that describes opinia published in reliable sources about this concrete WP article? (Of course, not only Haaretz, but all other sources should be added.)--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 16:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
* Yes. If there is reliable sourcing, the article could have a section detailing notable fringe theories to help the reader understand that these theories are considered to be nonsense by reputable historians. This section might utilize {{tlx|main|Warsaw concentration camp#Conspiracy theory}}. '''Please relocate discussion from Jimmy's talk page to an appropriate article talk page.''' I'm sure he will appreciate fewer pings and walls o' text. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 16:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
* Sometimes, it depends on [[WP:UNDUE]]/[[WP:FRINGE]]. In most cases the use of talk page [[:Template:Press]] is sufficient. In this case, the fringe theory is likely important enough to be mentioned in the Warsaw concentration camp article, and in the bio of the amateour historian who created it, but I don't think it merits any mention in the Holocaust in Poland article, just like [[Flat Earth]] is not mentioned in the article on [[Earth]] nor on [[Geography]].--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 02:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:*I agree with [[U|Jehochman]] insofar as going in the weeds on that article is concerned. The article desperately needs eyeballs. I think this discussion should continue here, but should be narrowly focused on whether Icewhiz was treated appropriately. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 17:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
For those who understand Hebrew, the Israel Broadcasting Corporation did a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAPIn8oBVzU piece] on this yesterday. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
: [[Gideon Greif]] is being interviewed by Moav Vardi. He completely rejects the KLW conspiracy theory, and supports the mainstream research on subject. He has some very harsh words about "whitewashing" Poles' role in the Holocaust, intensified following the rise of [[PiS]], and to the role of the contemporary [[Instytut Pamięci Narodowej|IPN]] in doing so (the IPN, he says, was "more or less objective" in its "previous incarnations"). He's clear on the use of "Nazi death camps" ("It's clear the extermination camps were German Nazi camps, and not Polish camps. They were on Polish [[Extraterritoriality|ex-territory]], because Poland doesn't exist between 1939 and 1945"), but says this does not justify the behavior of the majority of Poles (excluding saviors, eg. [[Żegota]]), "who were at best indifferent to the fate of Jews and their suffering, or collaborated with some degree of enthusiasm." He cite G's ''Hunt for the Jews'' and the 200,000 estimate. He says these events did not stop when the war ended- "they continued murdering Jews between 1945 and 1951 as if they haven't heard the Holocaust was over and Germany lost." He says the best and only way to fight Holocaust denialism is with continued research, publication and collection of testimonies.<ref>{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAPIn8oBVzU |title=העולם היום - 06.10.19 |date=2019-10-06 |time=5:28 |last=ורדי |first=מואב}}</ref> [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 15:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
== ArbCom deficiencies ==
Hello Jimmy. I think we have run into some problems with the way ArbCom is working. As you were originally responsible for this group, I'd like your thoughts on whether there should be an RfC to improve things. Some of my concerns:
# The Fram arbitration case was unfair because Fram was not unblocked to participate. We should agree that editors having a case heard by ArbCom should be unblocked so that they can participate in their own case. If an editor can't be trusted to participate in their own case, then there's no need for arbitration; just block them and be done with it.
# Arbitrators are under intense stress, as evidenced by their high attrition rate. We should discuss whether each case should be heard by a smaller number of arbitrators. This might help ease the workload.
# Arbitrators are being criticized for failing to engage with case parties and failing to sufficiently explain their reasoning (See IceWhiz appeal above). What can be done to improve communication? Even if an editor is in the wrong, they should feel that they have been heard. I've witnessed many times that ArbCom seems to decide cases on their private mailing list and then votes in a pro forma manner. (The Fram case was actually a good counter example of them not doing this.)
# ArbCom's data security is questionable. They have an unlimited retention period for confidential data, which ensures that this data will eventually leak. There should be a more thoughtful data retention policy.
In general the community does not want to ruled. Instead, we want ArbCom to be functional to help resolve intractable disputes. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks for this {{u|Jehochman}}, I hope you don't mind me responding in turn.
:# The board required that Fram would remain blocked while the review happened. We had the choice of accepting this requirement, or stamping our feet over this issue. I personally did turn up on Fram's meta talk page during the workshop as much as I could and I am aware that he pinged and discussed matters - I am not sure that having him on en.wp would have made a massive difference to the case. I agree that it would have been preferable to have him unblocked to participate - however there were a number of things I would have changed about the case if I had the option.
:# Of the five arbitrators who retired this year, three were for personal reasons unrelated to cases, and the arbitrators had not been particularly active up to that point. I can get you the statistics of how many emails were sent to the list if it helps. I am not convinced that smaller numbers of arbitrators on cases would reduce the stress - however this is something that should be discussed. Probably not at Jimmy's talk page though
:# The committee did not engage sufficiently on the Poland case. This is because the arbitrators who were working on the case included one who left for personal reasons, one who was less active than he hoped and one who focussed on co-ordinating the Fram case. This did not stop us reaching the correct decision (in my opinion). However, given that we will be electing 11 out of 15 of the new committee next year, can I suggest you raise your communication concerns as a candidate question at the next election? You do generally issue a voter's guide - perhaps include it in that.
:# I generally agree.
:Overall, I very much doubt people feel ruled by the Arbitration Committee. We are here to deal with the stuff the community cannot or will not. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:: For what it's worth, your activity in the Fram case was quite good. ArbCom has lasted a long time. Really the reason I'm asking here is to see if it's worth revisiting the arbitration policy and having an RfC as a refresh. On point 1, I hear you that the Fram case was difficult, but we can try to learn from it and make things better for the next case. Other points we seem to agree. I don't usually issue a voter guide. We should think about ways to improve communication. As a party, it would be nice to have an area where one could direct questions to arbitrators and get answers. The talk pages seems to risk questions getting lost and going unanswered. Additionally, we should encourage discussion between disputants and arbitrators. Underneath the bureaucracy, arbitration is a negotiation. The best result is if the parties are introspective and try to find ways to resolve their dispute by agreement. That is most likely to happen when they can talk constructively. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 13:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Jehochman}}, thank you - of course I'm aware of ways my activity could have been better. The Fram case was a one off - out of jurisdiction, we didn't follow our own standard processes, but made something that ''looked'' like an Arbcom case so that we could follow it. I have not seen anyone suggest that there will be a next one. There will be an RfC run by Arbcom soon on these issues though - I encourage you to participate there. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 13:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
::::I understand that the scope is “dealing with harassment”. Can we expand it to include, “updating and strengthening arbitration policy”? These issues are inter-related. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 13:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
"The board required that we do X" doesn't contradict "X makes the case unfair"; it just means that5 the board is dictating unfairness. Fram was given no reasonable chance to respond to the charges, and then was tried based on secret evidence, and stripped of his privileges based on secret evidence. And both Arbcom and the WMF know or should have been able to figure out that the de-facto requirements for making someone an admin and removing adminship are not mirror images of one another and that de-sysopping Fram and then requiring that he get another RFA is a sanction, not just being neutral and letting the community decide. If random admins were subject to RFAs in highly publicized situations I doubt most of them would be able to succeed.
(And it's amazing how many people dismiss the problems with secret evidence and not being able to respond to charges on the basis that since Fram obviously had some problems, it's not too bad a decision. Due process is *how you figure out* what the evidence means and whether it is good; when the process for dealing with evidence is tainted, you should not be concluding "it's okay because the evidence was good anyway".
Fram was still blatantly railroaded. The fact that Fram isn't quite as badly railroaded as he was before massive protests is damning with faint praise. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] ([[User talk:Ken Arromdee|talk]]) 17:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:Actually the board did not require the committee to act, but the alternative would have been continued ban -- the board asked the committee to decide, and the committee decided what it decided according to its view of its procedures (and what they thought best for English Wikipedia). Anyone and everyone may disagree with what the committee decided but it is the foundational nature of an elected committee that only those elected to be on the committee are entrusted to decide.
:But sure, everyone no doubt has there own opinion of how an RfA would have turned out, were it held in say, May. And also there own ideas on what level of process is "due" for a volunteer website permission. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* Well, if "Arbcom Deficiencies" is a general topic of discussion, here's my two cents as elections approach. (1) The biggest complaint I hear off-site on The Message Board That Will Not Be Named is that Arbcom does a terrible job of acknowledging receipt of communications. My suggestion there was that the committee should elect a Corresponding Secretary from within its ranks responsible for doing that for every non-spam communication. (2) I've begun to think over the last couple years that Arbcom should divide its members into two groups, who then sit out every other case to reduce workload and conserve energy, thereby reducing chance of burnout and resignations. This would also ensure smaller group organization for quicker decision-making. Exception to be made for giant cases such as the existential Fram case. Not positive this would work, but it's a thought. (3) Arbcom communication with the community has been consistently awful for years and years. Some kind of weekly, biweekly, or monthly summary report of activity needs to be officially issued. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
*:{{u|Carrite}}, I like ideas 1 and 3. I tried to manage communication in 2014, but really burned out doing so. Now, I help out but leave the heavy lifting to others. Putting in a requirement without someone who is willing to may well backfire. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
*:{{ec}} You're right that we have not done a good job of acknowledging receipt of communications; I've served on the Committee for a long time and there were times when we were, but this year has not been good. It's something I'm trying to be more cognizant of and active in doing. As for sitting out on cases, I'm not sure dictating who is active or inactive on a case in that way would be a good thing. Different arbitrators are stronger in different types of cases, and I think it's helpful for arbitrators to be active on cases that play to their strengths—requiring arbs to be inactive on cases where they would otherwise be an asset would be counterproductive, I think. The every-other-case model would also not work well if arbitrators needed to be away for a period of time for some reason. Perhaps it could be somewhat informal, in that arbitrators are encouraged to be active on some percentage of cases (less than 100%) and the choice of which cases they are inactive on is up to them. As for 3, what kinds of activity would you want to see reported? I assume you mean things like # of block appeals processed, etc.? [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 17:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::: Point taken on natural scheduling conflicts, illness, etc. potentially an insurmountable problem on splitting Arbcom into two "squads." Agreed it makes more sense developing a culture of specialization and an expectation that Arbs will sit out some significant percentage of cases on their own if it is outside their main strengths or primary interests. As for a regular communication vehicle, a simple 1000 to 2000 word statement every month: "These are the communications and appeals received (redacting names of complainants names as necessary), these are the arbs taking the lead on case 1, these are the arbs taking the lead on case 2. In weeks 1 and 2 the arb list mostly discussed case 1 and discussed appeals of indef blocks of party A and party B and we decided blahblahblah. In week 3 we did this and in week 4 we did that..." And so on and so forth. Yes, it would be more work, but it might go a long ways reducing the level of background noise from disaffected and unhappy people who feel like no progress is being made on anything or that their own situation is not being considered. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 22:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
*:Re. #3, weekly–monthly might be difficult, but ArbCom [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History#Activity reports|used to do annual reports]] and I've been compiling statistics with an eye to do something similar this year. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:For what it is worth, I think it plainly obvious that Fram was not "railroaded" by ArbCom. I've read their decision and looked at the evidence, and they acted in a balanced and thoughtful way. Fram, if our systems were working better, should have been desysopped a long time ago - his failed RfA shows why. His conduct was not appropriate for that position. Normally in disagreements around behavioral issues and what to do about them, there are two basic kinds of disagreements we might have. One kind of disagreement is around the facts of what the conduct actually was. The other is a more philosophical disagreement around what the principles may be. I believe, in this case, there is little disagreement about the facts - Fram's problematic behavior was pretty universally acknowledged, in some cases - and to his credit - even by him. And I think the RfA gives a strong indication of a lack of community consensus that his behavior as an admin was ok.
:As to whether Fram should have been banned - I think that's a complex matter, but I would have equally supported the ArbCom had they made that decision. My view is that absent some kind of egregious abuse of a ArbCom gone mad, in which my (theoretical?) reserve powers to call a new election would be in play, it is extremely important that the community support strongly the principle of an independent, respected ArbCom. If you disagree with a particular decision, it's perfectly fine to say so. If you disagree in some really very strong way, it's perfectly fine to run for office as a member of ArbCom on that platform. What I think is not very helpful is to undermine the authority of ArbCom while simultaneously rejecting (rightly, in my view) the idea that the WMF should step in to detailed internal user issues in the fashion of twitter/youtube staff moderation. You can have the one, or you can have the other. You can't have anarchy as that would lead to Wikipedia being overrun by trolls.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 01:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::"I've read their decision and looked at the evidence, and they acted in a balanced and thoughtful way." Jimbo, that's exactly what I was complaining about. Bad evidence will often look good if the accused doesn't get a chance to see it or rebut it. You can't rely on your imagination to conclude "well, there's obviously nothing wrong with the evidence" just because you don't see any obvious flaws, when the one person who *would* be motivated and knowledgeable enough to find the flaws was not permitted to do so. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] ([[User talk:Ken Arromdee|talk]]) 18:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
::My ideas for improving ArbCom are only slightly related to Fram. The one takeaway from that case is we should have a standard to unblock people to participate in their own case. If they can’t be trusted that much then arbitration isn’t needed; just ban them. The other things I proposed aren’t related to any specific case. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 02:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::In most cases, I agree. This was a rather unique set of circumstances, obviously, one which I think we all hope will not be repeated. In many cases, I think people should be unblocked in order '''only''' to participate in their own case. In particular, it should be clear that the behavior under scrutiny in a case must cease immediately during the case, whatever that might be in any given case. I would say that admins under an ArbCom case for misuse of the tools should be required to abstain from using the tools.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 22:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::::Just so. A final thing is that if a case has secret evidence I think a person at risk of being sanctioned should be allowed to chose a functionary they trust to review the evidence on their behalf and point out any discrepancies or mitigating circumstances. I understand the accused can’t always have access to all evidence, but at least they should be able to select somebody to represent their interests who can see the materials. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 01:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Jehochman}} That is a fantastic idea, which you should pursue vigorously and I will support. One of the reasons that the Framban dragged on so long is that the love triangle aspect of Fram's accusers prevented the Foundation leadership from sharing what Arbcom needed to make a decent decision, and Fram lost his temper in the interim, costing him his bit. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 16:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
* Frankly, I think Arbs and admins just need some training. If you're going to engage in a quasi-[[legal proceeding]], then you should have some training in law - that's how every other large organization does it, and there's no reason we should be any different. If we had some actual legal expertise then Policy might've been clearer and less convoluted, and ArbCom would've thought twice before holding "[[Secret trial|secret tribunals]]" with zero rights for defendants. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:: I think it would be helpful if a stableful of clerks were elected rather than continuing to let people don the clerk-fez at will. If clerks did more investigating and less formal enforcement of section-cutting-word-count and maybe even less blocking-of-the-not-yet-guilty while waiting for a verdict, it would be no bad thing. There are legitimate complaints in my view about how this case got decided, but there's also limits to what you can say from the MobCar about a case (given AGF and all). AGF can be a difficult pillar to swallow, when you're just after digging up broken pieces of scattered pillars
:::fia<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(12deg);bottom:-.57em;color:indigo;">firm</span>ble-free neu<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(180deg);bottom:-.57em;color:indigo">t</span>râle-nut <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(12deg);bottom:-.57em;color:darkgreen;">civi</span>cyc<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(12deg);bottom:-.57em;color:darkgreen;">lol</span>ity!
::at various ground-zeroes. More befezzed clerks, I say!🌿 [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | t]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|c]]</sup> 20:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::: More technology. More fancy CSS. Clerks shouldn't be counting words and copying templates by hand. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 12:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|SashiRolls}}, if they won’t speak to the mob, they certainly won’t let the mob elect members of the Royal Guard. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 17:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:: We just need NewYorkBrad back. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 21:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::: Please!!! <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> 20:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
== WMF question ==
Hi Jimbo - hope you and yours are well. I have a question regarding a current [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Office_actions/Community_consultation_on_partial_and_temporary_office_actions/09_2019#How_should_partial_and_temporary_Foundation_bans_be_used_(if_at_all)?_On_all_projects,_or_only_on_a_subset? RfC on Meta] As founder/co-founder (I'm not debating either side here), I'd like your thoughts as you were developing the WMF and Arbcom pretty much at the same time (as best as I can ascertain). Did you (or do you) intend for the WMF to be the/an administrative entity in the day to day operations of ''English'' Wikipedia? I've always thought that Arbcom was intended to be the group of folks who would decide behavior issues and various other user problems, and the community to decide content issues if possible ''ON WIKI''. I thought the WMF was primarily to oversee the business/money/assets end of things, and only step in on other wiki projects which didn't have a self-sustaining organizational ability. I've tried to research all the Bomis, Nupedia, Wikipedia history etc. myself, but any clarification would be appreciated. I'm going to voice my own individual thoughts on those RfC questions, but if possible, I'd like your input before I do. Thanks. [[User:Ched|— Ched]] ([[User talk:Ched|talk]]) 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:Is that the official [[meta:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019]] or did someone start it early? Fine with me, as long as we can add the sub-questions, they [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samuel_(WMF)&diff=19357296&oldid=19357197#Consultation_on_partial_and_temporary_office_actions said they would add.] Arbcom asked that it be opened, anyway. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 00:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:{{done}} [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Office_actions/Community_consultation_on_partial_and_temporary_office_actions/09_2019&diff=19426360&oldid=19426359 I also stood up for your right to hear appeals, Jimbo.] Sure you're imperfect, but until we can scan your brain into the institutional memory-a-tron, you're likely to continue to make reasonable delegation decisions. Don't say I never said anything nice about you. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 00:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::I also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&diff=prev&oldid=919288800 asked Katherine.] [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 21:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::{{U|EllenCT}}, personally. I would be surprised if you get an answer. On what seems to be her own admission, reading and maintaining her en.Wiki talk page are tasks that she delegates to her entourage of secretaries and chiefs-of-staff. She apparently prefers to do her Wiki business on Twitter. You are probably more likely to get a comment from our more approachable founder. {{U|Ched}} has asked the kind of question Jimbo often responds to.[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: I was hoping he would {{U|Kudpung}}, it would help me determine just how I want to word my posts in the RfC. Not that I consider Jimbo any kind of "God King" or anything, but reading the words of history on a page doesn't really give me a feel for what his thoughts and hopes were as he (and others) set things up back in the 2001 - 2004 era. But since he has been here without reply, I won't hold my breath. I'm sure he's got other things to do. Maybe he saw the {{tl|done}} emoji and figured I had received all the info I needed. No worries. [[User:Ched|— Ched]] ([[User talk:Ched|talk]]) 00:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{not done}}. Jimbo generally does make the right noises when he speaks up, unlike the WMF from the top down who always make the guarded, vague, and evasive comments one gets from politicians. The obvious problem today is that it was probably not in his wildest dreams that Wikipedia would become what it would be 20 years later, so many of the needed administrative things developed later organically, but not always for the best. So we are left with a totally disorganised corporate structure called the WMF, supposedly manged from 32,000ft, and a struggling self management of the projects with some de facto leaders, but no professionals in charge. Hence ad hoc groups like Arbcom which nowadays are thrown together once a year by a popularity contest, an ANI ruled largely by a resident gallery of peanuts, and the rest of Wikipedia being run by a bunch of hat collectors. Which is why we need Jimbo's occasional calls to sanity[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 02:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::Related: [[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Who put the WMF in charge?]] <small>— Preceding comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:194:300:130:9DFE:E3A4:7E0C:96AA|2601:194:300:130:9DFE:E3A4:7E0C:96AA]] ([[User talk:2601:194:300:130:9DFE:E3A4:7E0C:96AA|talk]]) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC) </small>
:::Thanks for the heads up, Anon. That thread is adequately answered by Jimbo and seems to say it all. {{U|Ched}}, do read it. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 02:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: Thank you both (2601 and {{u|Kudpung}}), that pretty gives me all the info I was looking for. I suspect that he ''could'' step in and make any changes he wanted, but Jimbo has always shown a "sort things out for yourselves" viewpoint (for most things). TY again. [[User:Ched|— Ched]] ([[User talk:Ched|talk]]) 02:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
== BBC [[Click (TV programme)]] segment on state interference on WP - Chinese especially ==
I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but the current edition of [[Click (TV programme)]] has an interesting segment on this - 5 mins or so, at the top of the programme. I expect it's available wherever their news channel is, & maybe online. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n13xtmd5 link on UK site]. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 15:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:The Beeb reuses a lot of content, so it's probably very similar to [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49921173 this article]. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 15:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
::Yes, with interviews. There's an amusing moment when the group of Taiwanese Wikipedians are asked what the WMF are doing about it. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there any way to legitimately see the clip or get the transcript outside the UK? I've read the article, but the video link above says it only works for the UK. I'd love to see the "amusing moment" described above. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 22:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|Smallbones}} [https://twitter.com/carljackmiller/status/1180417425914900480 here you go.] [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 04:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::The whole broadcast is up on YouTube (legally) at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgJhEvyi3x4] time 0:35-11:55. I found the broadcast much more accusatory than the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49921173 article]. TV can be like that, where a question (with a lifted eyebrow) can seem like (or actually be) an accusation. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 17:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
== Concern/Question about Wikia's decision to put ads on Gamepedia sites ==
Since you are the president of Wikia, I'd like to know as to why was the decision made to have advertisements on Gamepedia sites. It seems really bizarre to put ads on a big website, littered around the place. On mobile sites, fixed to the bottom on the users screen, in between sections, etc etc.. Thank you. <span style="background-color: blue; color:white;">–[[User:apap04|<span style="color: white;">Aνδρέας</span>]]</span><sup>[[User talk:apap04| talk]]</sup><sup> | </sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Apap04|contributions]]</sup> 14:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
:That's their only source of income for open, public, free wikis, most of which can't support independent funding. But if you think yours can, you can try a fundraiser and if you get enough, copy the content into a [[mw:Hosting services|paid MediaWiki host]]. There are alternatives with various extents of less MediaWiki-like features, like [[Google Sites]] and [[GitHub]]. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 18:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
== I wanna end myself ==
Hi, i was born in may 15, 2001. I am a gay boy and i am going to get a chainsaw to kill myself because i am depressed. [[User:Octnine|Octnine]] ([[User talk:Octnine|talk]]) 14:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)All content in the above text box is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license Version 4 and was originally sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=920392973.
  This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|