User:Gitz6666/ArbCom

On the scope of the case (Analysis)

Perhaps my squabble with MVBW was "out of scope", as Barkee49 commented (above at 14:52, 20 April 2023). However, I think it touches upon a fundamental issue of this case, which concerns precisely its scope, and thus the information that Arbs should be interested in gathering.

Because of the G&K paper, the scope of the case was defined as "WWII and the History of Jews in Poland" (or "HiP", Holocaust in Poland). But that was unfortunate: now that we know that GizzyCatBella was a SP of Jacurek, we see more clearly that the scope and name of the case should have been something like "The ex-EEMLs 14 years later". The presence of 5 or perhaps 6 ex-EEMLs among G&K's alleged "distortionists" (Volunteer Marek/Radeksz, My very best wishes/Biophys, GizzyCatBella/Jacurek, Piotrus, Poeticbent, and I guess also Molobo/MyMoloboaccount, if they are the same user) cannot be taken as mere coincidence. And if it is not a coincidence, then the ArbCom should look at the bigger picture and not limit themselves to the HiP topic area, for at least two reasons.

First, it is possible that a small but cohesive collaborative network of experienced users has developed on this project, based on shared political values and committed to nationalist editing. Looking at the parties involved in the case, it can be seen that – with the sole exception of Piotrus – their interactions took place also, but not exclusively or primarily, in the HiP topic area. No doubt, the memory of Nazi occupation is an important element in Polish national identity, but it is not the only area of concern for the ex-EEMLs (and it is very marginal for MVBW). If some ex-EEMLs are still editing Wikipedia in pursuit of a political agenda, which I strongly believe to be the case, then it is likely that their activities and modus operandi (massive removals of sourced materials, edit warring, tag-teaming, casting aspersions) are also to be found in other areas. To address the roots of the HiP distortions, ArbCom should carefully examine this interaction analysis [1] and check the articles where there's been close collaboration – i.e., editors adding or removing the same text in a close sequence. A few examples are given below in the collapsible box. This is the best way to establish whether there is a pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing by a close-knit group of veteran editors: focusing on the HiP area alone may be too narrow and not conclusive. Secondly, Arbs should look at the bigger picture to determine the best remedies for possible misconduct. If the ex-EEMLs hypothesis is well-founded, then reacting to misconduct in the HiP topic area by applying topic bans would be a cure worse than the disease: banning from one area would only shift the burden to other areas. Topic bans should at least cover the whole EE area instead of being limited to the HiP area, but even these topic bans would still be too narrow (politically sensitive areas outside EE would remain unprotected) and also too harsh: less restrictive measure are at hand, and there is no need to completely renounce the contribution of experienced users. I'd suggest the adoption of 1RR or 0RR – if these users notice disruption, they should turn to the talk pages and noticeboards instead of edit warring –, strict bans on tag-teaming/following each other around, a comprehensive restriction on incivility and possibly other well-targeted measures of this kind.