Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-15/Polish-Ukrainian WWII disputes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticlePolish-Ukrainian WWII disputes
Statusclose
Request date19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Requesting partyUnknown
Mediator(s)Xavexgoem (talk)
CommentOn hold pending EEML arbitration.

Currently: folks are setting up statements below, and a list of contentious articles is being drafted.

Request details[edit]

Where is the dispute?[edit]

At Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and related articles.

Who is involved?[edit]

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

  1. Piotrus (talk · contribs), filing party
  2. Tymek (talk · contribs)
  3. Poeticbent (talk · contribs)
  4. Jacurek (talk · contribs)
  5. Radeksz (talk · contribs)
  6. Lysy (talk · contribs)
  7. Paweł5586 (talk · contribs)
  8. Loosmark (talk · contribs)*
  9. Faustian (talk · contribs)
  10. Hillock65 (talk · contribs)
  11. Bandurist (talk · contribs)
  12. Lvivske (talk · contribs)
  13. Hedviberit (talk · contribs)
  14. Bobanni (talk · contribs)
  15. Vecrumba (talk · contribs)
  16. possibly others, this is not a closed request
  • Loosmark has recently been banned from Poland-Ukrainian subjects (which includes discussing them). I believe that this mediation cannot go forward if one of the most active editors in those subjects is silenced and excluded, hence I'd like to ask the user who filled the original AE request that resulted in the topic ban, Faustian, to ask at AE for Loosmark to be granted permission to join this mediation (otherwise his very participation here could serve to justify a ban).

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted[edit]

What is the dispute?[edit]

Short story: during WWII, tensions between Poles and Ukrainians in Kresy resulted in Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. This is the most controversial issue in modern Polish-Ukrainian relations and recently has led to a series of edit disputes on wiki, that resulted in growing bad faith, radicalization of users, edit wars, personal attacks and even arbitration restrictions.

What would you like to change about this?[edit]

We need a forum to discuss those issues in a perspective less affected by the events covered by the individual historical articles, and with a steady moderating presence of neutral editors.

Perhaps some content issues related to the article(s) in question can be worked out here as well, but primarily the goal is to get the involved editors to talk to another in good faith once again.

How do you think we can help?[edit]

Please restore the good faith between Polish and Ukrainian editors.

It is also possible that the mediator may wish to recommend a topic ban to some editors. I've seen many good editors from both sides lose their cool, and this mediation is my attempt to prevent such a topic ban from being necessary. If the mediation fails, I am considering an ArbCom request asking for topic ban to several editors (both Polish and Ukrainian).

Mediator notes[edit]

Formulating ground rules based on latest discussions. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note I'm also mediating a naming dispute near around this area. Lots of folks over there are named in this dispute, so if anyone is worried I'm biting off more than I can chew, please discuss that with me :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes[edit]

Sandstein has confirmed that Loosmark is granted an exception to this case. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per a a 3RR case and an AN discussion, both Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Ukrainian Insurgent Army are under a 1RR restriction (each editor may revert only once per 24-hour period). My impression is that the restriction has prevented edit wars, but there are still a lot of hostile feelings. No blocks have so far been necessary; anyone who went over the 1RR has taken back their change voluntarily. The Massacres article has filled up with good information and has a lot of references, though the validity of many references is disputed. (See Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia for some of the criticisms). It is good to see people arguing about source questions rather than POV, since at least the source questions can sometimes be answered. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

About this mediation[edit]

  • This is fantastic initiative and very needed. Looking forward to, hopefully successful, outcome of it.--Jacurek (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a good idea. With respect to Loosmark's topic ban, he was not (at least not recently) a heavy contributor on this topic and I am not convinced by his last statements that he would ne safe to reengage now. 03:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC) — Comment added by Faustian (talk · contribs)
  • Sandstein has granted me permission to participate, I therefore declare myself a part in this mediation. Loosmark (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

I filled this in because I dearly want us to talk some thins before this escalates into more editors being on AE topic bans and/or its own ArbCom. Let's start by making things clear:

  • nobody here is a Nazi
  • nobody here is a disruptive nationalist troll
  • we need to assume good faith about the other side and avoid any personal attacks
  • content wise, we have to understand that Poles and Ukrainians editors (most of us here) were both brought on somewhat nationalistic propaganda, that a lot of Polish and Ukrainian scholars were brought on the same propaganda and that their books and articles often reflect this
  • content wise, finally, we have to understand it is a painful matter - we all hate to hear bad things about our country, and the truth is, both sides have skeletons in their closets when it comes to Volhynia.

What we have seen over the past few months is a string of counteraccusations (Ukrainians did this, Poles did that) leading to increasing bad faith and desire to "get even". That's a bad attitude.

My advice: if you hear criticism form an editor from a different side, assume they are doing it in good faith. If you want to criticize somebody's work, be polite and respectful. Avoid wiki edits that can be seen as lacking respect - plain undoes/reverts, reverts without discussion on talk, and such. If you cannot write about such issues without keeping distance, I strongly suggest that you don't. Don't assume that because somebody is writing about things that you find painful they are doing it out of malice. Don't retaliate by writing things they will find painful. If you cannot reach an agreement about content, ask neutral editors for advice; perhaps they can come up with a better wording.

Also, to ease the feelings that we are opponents, I'd suggest we try to work on some articles that can be agreeable to both Poles and Ukrainians.

Perhaps we could create a list of articles that are prone to conflict, and try to involuntarily limit edits to them? We could have a "painful Polish-Ukrainian article of a month" and try to develop it together as well, and try to avoid working on others? Just brainstorming, but we do need a set of solutions that don't end up in mutual hatred and ArbCom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles prone to conflict (help expanding it):
Articles where Polish and Ukrainian editors colaborate(d) successfully

Loosmark (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a good idea. As long as I'm looking over everything, a big ole list would be nice so I can construct a watchlist for us all. If this goes right, I think a PUCOLL (or whatever) might be a good idea (if anything, I want to prove that one of the COLLs (save for the Sri Lankan one, which last I knew was doing well) can actually work). I'm getting ahead of myself...
I figure most of the folks here are familiar with BOLD, revert, discuss? If lack of editing decorum (lack of a better phrase) is an issue, I'd like to get that straightened out first. I figure this is a real issue, there being some 1RR restrictions in place. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May i ask what is a PUCOLL? Loosmark (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We have a couple of COLLaboration wikiprojects. The most successful was Sebastian Helm's Sri Lanka/Collaboration (WP:SLC). He later went on to form (I think) the Israeli/Palestinian Collaboration (WP:IPCOLL). There's also an Irish collaboration, largely around the troubles. PUCOLL would stand for Polish/Ukranian collaboration. I actually have no clue why I brought that thought up; I'm largely talking to myself, there.
The thing with the COLLs though is that, by and large, they aren't very successful. But it is a model worth improving on. Really, this is just one of my hobby horses that really didn't any need mentioning :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, it's an interesting concept, although i'm not sure either it would work. For now I hope others will help expanding the list of problematic articles. Loosmark (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one more article which should be added to the list : Historiography of the Volyn tragedy--Jacurek (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Loosmark (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding an article in the area that was an example of cooperation rather than conflict (which doesn't mean that there weren't disputes) Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia (1930), which Polish and Ukrainian editors worked on together and DYKed it? Per the idea of PUCOLL (as far as I understand it), it might be good to accentuate the good as well as the bad.radek (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created that too. Loosmark (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Historiography of the Volyn tragedy can be listed under "Articles where Polish and Ukrainian editors colaborate(d) successfully". Until the recent edits by Paweł5586, that is :) --Lysytalk 01:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that always the case? Guy's like a racoon knocking over your garbage cans.--Львівське (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Poeticbent[edit]

Note to Cabalists adopting this case. The reason why, the editorial wars over the series of articles about the massacres of Poles and Jews in Kresy are so bad, is because the issues of responsibility for committed war crimes, have never been resolved in real life either. The Soviet Union kept a lid on it for fifty years without an investigation. – There was no war crimes tribunal like in the case of German Nazis charged by the Allies in Nuremberg. No criminal organization was taken to court and formally banned, similar to the German SS. The Ukrainian perpetrators who might still be alive, walk the streets of Kiev free and no doubt, some of them probably celebrate the Ukrainian independence in public, dressed as heroes.

The current political climate between the two sides is mirrored in Wikipedia of course. The numbers of victims across several voivodeships and the circumstances surrounding their deaths are questioned to the point of absurdity. Massacres are being renamed. Living historians are misrepresented and than discredited often with nonsensical anonymous BLP claims. Sources are constantly manipulated. The WW2 history is being reinvented as we speak, with self-defense groups of local Polish and Jewish villagers painted as armies of well trained soldiers.

No wonder, some Polish Wikipedians go ballistic over the Chinese torture of daily revisions made by the Ukrainian users, including little games, like a single word here and there, changing around the meaning of what the source said. It never ends. The same users are back the next day, and honestly, there are better things to do in life than fight with monikers. I personally took these articles off my watch list once I realized that my writing time as a notable Wikipedian is worth a lot more somewhere else. I go back occasionally though, driven by a desire to improve on the content… but I get reverted, than reported, and everything goes back to square one. The gaming of the system seems to be working though. For example, the other day I noticed for the first time, that an uninvolved administrator claimed the numbers of victims four times smaller than estimated recently, partly because the actual number has been pushed to the end of the article once it finally became clear that it can no longer be deleted. --Poeticbent talk 15:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that consciously limiting AN/I and AE participation might be a good path for the time being, to avoid gaming and accusations thereof. The point of any mediation is to limit those kinds of wildfires, so I'll put some thought into this. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba[edit]

I have been keeping tabs on the Polish-Ukrainian dispute for some time. I concur with Piotrus' assessment. To Xavexgoem's point above, I have suggested numerous times in the past that the only way to prevent editors descending into conflict is to disarm them, even if temporarily. Agreement to 1RR and agreement to not file any arbitration actions (enforcement, incidents,...) or to lobby admins for some minumum period, say 6 months, over a set of articles (the current list being developed) would go a long way toward focusing energies on content. Unfortunately, requesting action against editors is far too easy: a process with minimal entry conditions is an invitation for abuse as a means to win content arguments. PL is a priority currently but I hope to return to comment further as this case develops. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chaosdruid[edit]

I have also been trying to keep an overview and watchful eye on these matters. There are many topics which need to be discussed and ironed out to prevent these issues from escalation again. It seems to me that the main problem has been the inclusion of War crimes in EVERY article about Ukraine during the period 1936 to 1945.
If there is an article on "This massacre" and "That cleansing" then these do not need to be repeated in such depth on each page. It has long been my contention that a link to the main article on "This massacre" and a short description in one para would have been enough. Some articles now have as much as a third of their body including sections on war crimes and massacres which in my opinion need to be reduced and any expansion should be in the "This massacre" article space.
The worst example of such discussion is in the Lviv page - this is an article on the history of the city and you can see the extent to which the "discussion" overtakes the actual subject, the history of the area. There is also a particular Polish/Ukrainian dsipute for those histories of Galician towns and cities. I hope that from these discussion we can agree to some sort of overall guidelines to ensure that these horrendous acts are not forgotten without drowning historical articles with the same details and arguments over and over again.
I have stated on numerous occasions that I am neutral (as one should be) and have tried to lead any discussion on these matters along the same lines - neutrality is key to this. For example [Talk:Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II/Archive_1#NPoV] and [Talk:Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II/Archive_1#Please_ignore_the_trolling_by_user_65.32.128.178]

Some examples of articles which have suffered or been "discussed" at legnth:
Talk:Lviv#Pogrom
14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian)
Talk:Ukrainian-German_collaboration_during_World_War_II

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosdruid could please provide some evidence that "EVERY" article has the War crimes included? Loosmark (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Rules[edit]

Hi, I'm Xavexgoem and I'll be moderating this discussion. My plan at the moment is not to guide discussion, just to keep it sane.

  • Please avoid abstractions above "editor". What "side" you or others are on is unhelpful for discussion 90% of the time. With that in mind, please respect (or appear to, at any rate) another's ideologies, ethnicity, etc., as it is important to another's sense of self. What is more important on this project than who we are in real life is that we are all editors sharing the same server.
  • Assume good faith, even when you're not. Assuming bad faith is often an excuse for others to assume bad faith on your part. Creates a giant downward spiral.

And that's about it for now. That, and all the normal stuff: No personal attacks, civility, blahblahblah, you've heard it all. If you agree, please sign below:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-15/Polish-Ukrainian_WWII_disputes&oldid=1089912198"