Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions

 

*<u>The first issue</u> was my "''desire to defend the actions of Piotrus and Volunteer Marek''" (FoF). I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas. Yes, I felt they deserved some support, in part as victims of harassment by the banned user. However, the behavior by VM was clearly problematic, and I do not want to condone anything he did. It was never my intention to enable bad behavior in the project, and I am sorry for exercising a poor judgement in this case. Moreover, these guys are more than capable of defending themselves. Therefore, if the one-sided interaction ban is lifted, I would still refrain from commenting about VM and Piotrus anywhere, just in case, although a legitimate collaboration with them could be beneficial, given the overlap of our editing interests.

*<u>The second issue</u> was my participation in the arbitration case, "''extensive, often strongly stated, not always backed by evidence" and "sometimes contradicted by policies and guidelines''" (FoF). Yes, I made wrong comments in this case, and I sincerely apologize for making them. I thought that including me as a party to the case was an invitation to comment, even though there was no an obligation to comment. Unfortunately, no one said that my comments were so unhelpful during the case, prior to posting the Proposed Decision (actually, I striked through one of these comments: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland&diff=next&oldid=1151409985]). This had happen in part because I simply had nothing new to say on this case, being only marginally involved in the editing of pages on Jewish history. That's why I did not submit any Evidence. Who cares what I think about the research article outside of my area of expertise, Wikipedia policies (arbitrators know them better) and participants whose editing I mostly knew in other subject areas? But it was not my intention to offend anyone or make your work more difficult. I am sorry if it looked that way. I just commented, exactly as I would with my colleagues or friends, and we frequently disagree on issues. Well, that was wrong. A contentious arbitration is not a proper place for such discussions. I fully understand this now. I do admit having a negative perception of the article by G&K. Not any more. I now believe their publication was a "red flag" indicating that an effort must be made to fix the issues and improve our reputation in the expert community. ''I would never make such comments again''.

*<u>Contributing to the project was difficult for me with such editing restrictions</u> because a lot of subjects I liked editing may be related to Poland during the war, broadly construed. In June 2023, I started editing page [[Slava Ukraini]] that existed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slava_Ukraini&oldid=1158188166 such version] and did not mention Poland anywhere, hence I thought it was safe to edit. However, Marcelus inserted a WWII Poland-related content, and I made a topic ban violation by modifying his newly included content. Unfortunately, I realized this only much later, being busy in real life and [[Selective perception|forgetting about all unpleasant things here]]. As a result, the topic ban was expanded as "''World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe''" to make sure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would be respected [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&direction=next&oldid=1162242149#My_very_best_wishes]. I apologize for this blunder. As of note, we had only a minor content disagreement with Marcelus who said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1161759508 this] on AE.

*Once again, I apologize for making such comments during the arbitration and for the topic ban violation a year ago. But I did not have any problems with content editing or dispute resolution in contentious subject areas in recent years, including the area covered by the current topic ban (before the ban was issued). Hence, I am confident I can edit such subjects and interact productively with all users. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 23:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 

:*@Pppery. Yes, indeed. Importantly, ''this wider topic ban on AE was imposed only to prevent any future violation of the original topic by Arbcom, nothing else'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1162224458],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1162226159]. Therefore, if the original topic ban is lifted, there should be no reason for keeping this wider topic ban. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:*@HouseBlaster. Actually, after having this experience, I would rather not support ''anyone'' in any administrative discussions, just to be safe. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 05:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

:*@Aoidh. Yes, the iban is not hugely restrictive. I can even edit same pages as Piotrus and VM, just should not interact with them per [[WP:IBAN]]. Although I never had problems interacting with them on any article talk pages, and we rarely reverted each other's edits. The issue is my comments during administrative discussions that could be regarded as supporting these users. I fully understand this now and would never do it again, even if the iban was lifted. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 

*If you think that anything in my statements was incorrect, please tell, and I can provide additional explanations. If the motion will not pass, and I will come with same request next year, what should I do differently? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 

=== Statement by Volunteer Marek ===

 

*{{ping|The Four Deuces}} is bringing up the truly ancient past. As someone who is on friendly terms with all three editors and frequently was in discussions about the Ukraine war where MVBW and VM were reasoning witH editors who thought the Russians could do no wrong, I can assure you that Piotrus was in entirely different topic areas at the time, and told me he lost contact with MVBW after the email list case. It is true that MVBW often agreed with VM on Ukraine, but then so did I. VM did his homework on Ukraine and every time I checked him, he was completely correct. I will also add that when I went back to the war on Ukraine article after the HiP case I found more than one source misrepresentation in the limited area of casualty numbers that I was trying to update, and vast resistance to edits to the "stable version". So I regret to say that in my informed opinion the sanctions were not only unnecessary but harmed the encyclopedia. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

*{{ping|The Four Deuces}} this is someone else's appeal so I am going to give that rather specious argument the silence it deserves. I'll just note you are not disclosing your interactions with me either, for that matter. I am not saying you should have; sometimes ancient is just ancient, is all, and that is true in both cases. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 

*:Thanks @[[User:Pppery|Pppery]] for that. I'll note that it seems to have been placed as an individual administrator action by {{u|Tamzin}} and as it is a year old (as of today) I'd support repealing that as part of the motion given the broad overlap, but will wait for further feedback before doing so, though admittedly the justification for the topic ban being necessary a year ago is strengthened by that action). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

*I am not immediately opposed to this request; there was cause at the time to implement these remedies but it was by no means a central part of the original case. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 

====Motion: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland====

{{ACMajority|active = 9 |recused = 1 |abstain = 2 |motion = yes}}

 

;Support

;Oppose

 

;Abstain

 

;Arbitrator discussion

*:The AE topic ban was a year ago and happened only a couple weeks after the case closed so I don't think it outrageous to be appealed (and rescinded) now else we should have made the minimum time to wait longer. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

*::I appear to have misread the timestamps. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 

====Motion 2: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland====

{{ACMajority|active = 9 |recused = 1 |abstain = 1 |motion = yes}}

 

;Support

 

;Oppose

 

;Abstain

 

 

== Clarification request: Noleander ==

''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''

<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->

 

=== Statement by HouseBlaster ===

*Yeah, agree with Barkeep. Or we could add something like “or equivalent process” after mention of RfA. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 02:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

*Also agree with Barkeep. If the community establishes a new process to become an admin, editors who are desysoped can also use that process to request/apply for the tools. Requests to update documents can happen if/when those processes are put in place. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 04:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)