Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Proposed decision
Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)
Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023
Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk), Firefly (Talk), MJL (Talk), ToBeFree (Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk), Primefac (Talk), Wugapodes (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page. |
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Role of the Arbitration Committee
2) The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve (§ Arbitration Policy). From time to time the committee may revisit previous cases to review new allegations of editor misconduct and to examine the effectiveness of enforcement systems. It is not the purpose of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes nor to adjudicate outside criticism.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Any non-Wikipedians reading this should pay especial attention to this. The Arbitration Committee's mandate is to solve conduct, not content. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Limitations of arbitration
3) Despite employing more formal procedures than other aspects of Wikipedia, Wikipedia Arbitration is not and does not purport to be a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. The Arbitration Committee strives for fairness in every case. However, the evidence is generally limited to what can be located and presented online, safeguards such as mandatory disclosure of information and cross-examination of witnesses are not available, and only issues directly affecting Wikipedia and with-in the scope of the case are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be taken out of context or misused by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.
- Support:
- Given the external attention this case has drawn this seems important to note. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- As much as I sometimes make comparisons to the legal system since it is what I am familiar with, Wikipedia does not, and should not ever, reflect the real world legal systems. The Arbitration process is unique to Wikipedia and has evolved to meet Wikipedia specific needs. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Healthy and unhealthy conflict
4) Conflict is unavoidable and an inherent part of processes like the bold, revert, discuss cycle and deletion discussions. These processes work effectively when editors engage in healthy conflict by debating ideas, openly providing information, and seeking mutual understanding of an issue. Sniping criticism, ad hominem arguments, and incivility are harmful to other editors and the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. While healthy conflict is essential to building an encyclopedia, editors who engage in unhealthy conflict may be sanctioned.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Battleground conduct
5) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battleground. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Topic area burnout
6) Repeatedly encountering bludgeoning, battleground tactics, and a lack of support from dispute resolution processes can lead to editors leaving the topic area or ceasing to productively engage in the consensus-building process, such as by adopting battleground tactics themselves or ceasing to file misconduct reports.
- Support:
- I'll note this in the FoF as well, but this was a real issue in this case. I'm not sure we've hit on the right remedy yet or even if there is a right remedy. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep says it well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Verifiability of foreign language texts
7) Claims on the English Wikipedia must verifiably come from a reliable source, and the ability for editors to verify claims is important for resolving factual disputes. Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. The use of foreign language sources should be done with care, especially in contentious topics, because it can significantly reduce the number of editors able to verify or help resolve disputes.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Accessibility of sources
8) Many citations on the English Wikipedia are to online resources, and this is unsurprising for an online encyclopedia. Online sources are easier to access and easier for editors to verify. Still, many reliable sources are not readily available to everyone online, so reliable sources should not be rejected merely because they are difficult or costly to access. Special care should be taken when using difficult-to-access sources, especially when used to support contentious claims. Editors should take care to provide full bibliographic information, such as the source's reference number or an in-source quotation, to help editors and readers find and verify the claims in the sources.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Reconciling the Free encyclopedia in a world where most things are not free will always be a challenge. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Many of us as editors have access that others do not: certain libraries, institutional subscriptions, the funds to buy books. This is incredibly valuable; most of my articles have been written only because I had institutional access or had been able to buy a book. But this also requires some extra work on the part of editors who have this privileged information. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Source manipulation is a conduct issue
9) By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the material referenced to that source fairly and accurately reflects the intent of the original source. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. An editor who repeatedly or intentionally fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research may be sanctioned. Merely because disruption involves sources does not make said disruption a "content issue" outside of administrative reach.
- Support:
- ArbCom has a fine line to walk here, but that last sentence is important. "I disagree with whether we should use this source" is a content issue. The behavior described in this principle is, however, one of conduct and appropriate for Arbitration Committee review. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per Barkeep. Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Whether purposeful of not, misrepresentations of sources constitute disruptive editing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Fair criticism
10) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, with evidence and without resorting to personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the most appropriate dispute resolution mechanism.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
On-wiki and off-wiki behaviour
11) Behaviour of editors on-wiki and off-wiki are not subject to the same standards. Conduct which may be considered acceptable in the open and transparent atmosphere of Wikipedia (i.e., on-wiki) may be controversial and even unacceptable if made off wiki, due to the lack of transparency. In a similar vein, off-wiki disclosure of personal information does not allow, or excuse, a third party to post it on-wiki.
- Support:
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- We are not the off-wiki civility police. We should only be tackling off-wiki conduct when it is severe. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Responding to harassment
12) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others, or who genuinely perceives themself to have been harassed or attacked—whether on Wikipedia or off—should not see that harassment as an excuse for violating Wikipedia policy. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards, especially where the harassment has been protracted or severe.
- Support:
- I strongly believe this to be true. But I will also note that it comes from the Lightbreather case where very strong remedies were still enacted. So this is definitely a place where reasonable people can come to differing conclusions about how to weigh this. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Being the target of harassment may be a mitigating factor to be considered, but it is not a blanket excuse for one's own poor behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I thought of this idea, and the Lightbreather case, extensively during this case. Harassment is terrible. But it is not a get out of jail free card. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- With the reservations above. Izno (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- As everyone else says. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Harassment is a mitigating factor, and should be considered, but as my colleague have explained - it can only mitigate so far. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Age of evidence
13) The arbitration policy does not place strict limits on the age of evidence that may be submitted in an arbitration case, although the Arbitration Committee will sometimes preemptively limit the scope of a case to a specific period of time. The Committee may choose to disregard or give less weight to evidence that is not recent.
- Support:
- Several parties are not being named in this case because of this principle. If there were to return to the topic area after this case and engage in similar behavior to what they did in the past I will be quite willing, as an individual administrator, to levy sanction and/or to encourage the Committee to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- The older something is, the less weight I give it. Generally I ignore anything older than 10 years, unless extreme. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- 2 things. 1) There are other parties than those Barkeep mentions whose behavior was suboptimal in the evidence that are currently also unnamed. Just to make clear that there are two groups here. 2) I would add to his 2 groups the administrators at AE as a group I would encourage to look at those with a history in this area quite closely. Izno (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Context is everything here. Old evidence can be a pointer to a submission which is just a long-held grudge or evidence of a long running problem. Cabayi (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Considering my position here as I have been on the receiving end of the "some of this evidence is old" routine as a case partipant, when I was trying to demonstrate a long-term pattern. It can be very frustrating for users to know what this committee wants and what it will find compelling, although that doesn't seem to be the exact issue at play in this specific case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Like you noted elsewhere for harassment this is a "may choose" situation. We definitely note some long-term patterns for some editors in this case. But there are a few parties, with one in particular, whose conduct I found quite poor. But that editor has also stopped editing in the topic area. To add an FoF and topic ban for an area that the editor has stepped away from of their own violition feels unduly harsh and unfair. So it's this second kind of editor that I am thinking about while supporting this principle, not the editor for whom there is evidence going back years and years and years. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Participation on arbitration pages
14) Policy states: "All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so." The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Recidivism
15) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behavior are expected to improve their behavior, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Universal Code of Conduct
16) The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. The English Wikipedia has developed policies and guidelines (PAG) that add to this minimum that take account of local and cultural context, maintaining the UCoC criteria as a minimum standard and, in many PAGs, going beyond those minimums. Therefore, the Arbitration Committee, as an identified high-level decision making body under the UCoC enforcement guidelines, may choose to evaluate compliance with English Wikipedia PAG, while still respecting the UCoC.
- Support:
- I expect this might generate some discussion among the community and among arbs so I might have more to say about this later. But I do think this an important principle in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- We are in the un-enviable position of serving multiple masters. We do serve and are members of the English Wikipedia community, but we also serve and are members of the wider Wikimedia projects community. I choose not to ignore that wider view, even if I offer more weight to the local community's wishes. I appreciate the concerns below, and would support an alternative proposal, but I do think this topic should be mentioned. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that every point of UCoC is covered by enwiki policy. However UCoC was approved and its enforcement guidelines were approved. It's incumbent on every admin, functionary, and the ArbCom to ensure it's applied. We may as well get used to noting UCoC infractions even if we handle them where possible as enwiki policy violations. Cabayi (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per Worm... I don't really like aspects of this either, but we can't ignore it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- I do not think we can enforce the UCOC without an enabling act by the community. I would much rather we stick to local policy, which, as the principle says, is more strict anyways --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comments:
- I think the issue I take with this remedy (and I gave this feedback in private) is whether the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in fact add to the UCOC. Some quantity of discussion had on these case pages was about whether that word is true. Ironically, I also don't think it gives Wikipedia editors enough credit for how we got here, because it could be read as "the UCOC came first and then we made local interpretation better" rather than "the local implementation came first and the UCOC came later". Izno (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I share Izno's concern, and also just don't want to even really mention the UCoC at all. We were elected to enforce en.wp policies, and that is what we should be focussing on. This case is overly-complicated anough without drawing the UCoC into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Contra your objection, I think it is important to make clear what our role is in that process, despite the local dissatisfaction with how the UCOC came to be. I just do not know in which ArbCom case that becomes most relevant. Given the large discussion on enforcing the case on these pages, I think now might be as reasonable as later, and gives a starting point for future ArbComs in case there ever is some disagreement between the U4C and ArbCom. Izno (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- In almost all cases, as you mentioned, we already have local policies that meet or exceed the standards of the UCoC, so for me this is less about dissatisfaction than about relevance. I would really like a yes-or-no answer to the question "can the U4C overrule or overturn arbcom" but I don't see how this case is the forum to hash that out, especially given that the U4C doesn't even exist yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Pretending that the UCoC doesn't exist feels like an express train towards someone making a (superficially at least) compelling case that there's been a systemic failure to enforce it and have the U4C do something really counterproductive. Global Policies are Global Policies even if I think the UCoC itself should have been ratified rather than imposed by the board. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that pretending it does not exist is not viable in the long term, but I don't see how that obligates us to mention it in this specific case when we have local policies that cover all the same territory. Nobody can argue that we did not follow the UCoC if we actually hold users to a higher bar than it requires. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Contra your objection, I think it is important to make clear what our role is in that process, despite the local dissatisfaction with how the UCOC came to be. I just do not know in which ArbCom case that becomes most relevant. Given the large discussion on enforcing the case on these pages, I think now might be as reasonable as later, and gives a starting point for future ArbComs in case there ever is some disagreement between the U4C and ArbCom. Izno (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the change discussed by Izno and NBB on the talk page to make note that the enwiki policies preceded the UCoC (but still go beyond the minimums) is a good one and I would support making that edit above. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct (alt)
16) The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour in Wikimedia spaces. The English Wikipedia has developed, prior to the development of the UCOC, policies and guidelines (PAGs) which meet the intent of the UCOC. Many of the English Wikipedia PAGs place additional expectations on behavior as it pertains to English Wikipedia. Therefore, the Arbitration Committee, as an identified high-level decision making body under the UCoC enforcement guidelines, may choose to evaluate compliance with English Wikipedia PAGs, while still respecting the UCoC.
- Support:
- Izno (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I like this workshopped version a bit better. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Equal to above support Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Does not remedy my concerns, above --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comments: I do not think I can vote in support of the first version of this principle with its bold statement of all, as I have said above. I have tried to thread the needle on my issues with that version so as to be neutral on one of the questions while also trying to speak to how our policies and guidelines do their best today to discuss how English Wikipedia thinks about both the problems the UCOC attempts to prevent and the good behaviors the UCOC attempts to encourage. I do not think this version fixes Beeblebrox's or Guerillero's concerns but I do think it ameliorates them in some ways. I am open to revision so long as the core of the question does not appear to be settled without other evidence that it is indeed settled. Izno (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- If "meet the intent" is replaced with what the UCoC/EG actually says (e.g. minimum standard) I could support this co-equally with the other 6. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Could you draft that line out for me, so you're clear on what you're shooting for there? Izno (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
which meet
would be one way. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)the intentminimum standard of the UCOC- I think that might be ok for me. I'll think about it some more today. Izno (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Am I to take by the lack of change that it wasn't OK for you? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think it duplicates the former sentence. Intent was also purposefully selected so as to allow the wiggle room I think this principle needs. I haven't totally discarded it, but I don't think making that change does what I'm trying to do in this principle. Why do you think that's a good switch? Izno (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Am I to take by the lack of change that it wasn't OK for you? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think that might be ok for me. I'll think about it some more today. Izno (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Could you draft that line out for me, so you're clear on what you're shooting for there? Izno (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- If "meet the intent" is replaced with what the UCoC/EG actually says (e.g. minimum standard) I could support this co-equally with the other 6. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I feel like I'm missing something here, I don't get why we are trying so hard to make a statement about the UCoC in this decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think a principle is called for if one supports FOF 9, as you have done, which currently quotes the UCOC (though it does not attribute those quotations to the UCOC). Izno (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty sure we have local policies covering misrepresenting sources and using original research. We were sanctioning people for these things long before the UCoC was even proposed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Previous Arbitration Committee interventions in the topic area
1) Since 2007, the Arbitration Committee has attempted to resolve disputes in the topic area, starting with a general amnesty in 2007 for editors previously in disputes related to Eastern Europe. Later that year, an additional case titled Eastern Europe was opened, and a special set of administrative policies were authorized for the designated contentious topic. Following the 2009 discovery of a mailing list used to coordinate editing in the Eastern European topic area, then-Arbitrator Newyorkbrad moved to open a case on the Committee's own initiative. The Committee opened the case as Eastern European mailing list and, following its investigation, 10 editors were banned from the Eastern European topic area, 3 of whom are parties to the present case. In the 10 years following that case, many of these restrictions were lifted on the belief that past problems would not occur in the future.
In 2019 a request was made that the Arbitration Committee again review conduct in the area. The Committee accepted and opened the case as Antisemitism in Poland. Two editors were topic banned as a result of the 2019 case: Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek (topic ban rescinded in December 2020). In addition to the contentious topic designation from Eastern Europe (2007), Antisemitism in Poland (2019) prohibited editors who did not have at least 30 days tenure and 500 edits from editing in the topic area and placed a sourcing restriction on articles about Polish history during World War II. The Arbitration Committee in 2019 and the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety department in 2020 each banned Icewhiz, following his severe and sustained harassment of other editors.
In December 2021 a case request entitled "Warsaw Concentration Camp" was filed, which was resolved in January 2022 with a motion, that among other things, allowed editors to request enforcement of the sourcing requirement at WP:ARCA and allowed a consensus of administrators at Arbitration Enforcement to request a new case be opened.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Russavia-Biophys was missed, but the summary is good. Eastern Europe joins India-Pakistan, Israel-Palestine, and Armenia-Azerbaijan in the list of the longest running arbcom sagas. What makes it unique is the core dramatis personae who keep on appearing in cases close to 20 years later. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
"Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" background and use in the case
2.1) "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust", authored by Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein, was published on February 9, 2023. In response, the Arbitration Committee, invoking its jurisdiction over all matters previously heard and exercising its authority to revisit any proceeding at any time at its sole discretion filed a case request on February 13. The case was accepted by the committee and formally opened March 13.
- Support:
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2.2) While the case was opened in response to "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust", the Arbitration Committee did not consider or evaluate all the claims made in the journal article. Instead, the Arbitration Committee, in accordance with its policy and procedure, evaluated the conduct of editors through the evidence submitted during the proceedings, including some claims from the article, and the behavior of editors during the case.
- Support:
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Editors and administrators have left the topic area
3) Several editors, including some who are party to the case, have noted that they have left the topic area owing to what they found as an unpleasant and unrewarding editing environment. Two uninvolved administrators also noted their reluctance to issue sanctions in the topic area following previous unpleasant experiences when doing so. (Preliminary statements)
- Support:
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- As I noted in the related principle, I find this an important fact to think about and I'm not sure we've found a remedy to address this. Or if there is even a remedy to address this. But I think it's incumbent on us to at least try when it's as true as it is in this topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is important as an FOF as it may weight more or less on which remedies are chosen below. Izno (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
2022-23 activity in the topic area
4) Between January 2022 and the publication of "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" there was only 1 Arbitration Enforcement request and minimal reports at other noticeboards. The Arbitration Committee and Trust and Safety each received a report about an editor in this topic area during that time. (Disruption in the topic area over time evidence summary) In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine and many editors interested in this topic area focused their editing on that. (Preliminary statements of Elinruby, Ealdgyth, Paul Siebert, Volunteer Marek)
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Don't love the final sentence, but I'll take it. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- The T&S report suggested to me that it would've been better if the Warsaw case was accepted. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think the final section is factual based on the evidence --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 07:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Source manipulation complaints are difficult but necessary
5) Of the over 100 sources referenced in evidence (Bibliography), approximately 25 were in a language other than English and approximately 33 were freely available online for review. The remaining sources required access to library resources either in-person or online, and even then some sources were not accessible. Adequately responding to even a simple complaint of source manipulation may require a significant expenditure of time or money just to evaluate whether an editor is lying. Not everyone has the time or resources to resolve this, and so issues go unresolved due to lack of resources which harms the editorial environment, encyclopedic quality and ultimately public information. (Mariusz Bechta, History of the Jews in Poland)
- Support:
- GeneralNotability (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I support this version, or the split proposed below WormTT(talk) 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- This or the split. I'm also fine simply removing the portion that would be split since I'm not sure we really need a new principle beyond 7, 8, and 9. I will say that I've spend a few dollars on subscriptions for access to sources brought up in this case. While I'm fine with that, I think it's worth noting that it's a pretty big ask of any random patrolling admin. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- With any of the options, though honestly I am leaning a bit towards keeping it as-is per Izno's latest comment below. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, leaving it is fine for now. The principleish content might stand some inclusion on the principles index even so since there are many stories cross-wiki of users spending their own cash to verify claims. WP:TWL has helped, a lot, I hope. Izno (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- Some of this still strikes me as a bit of a principle (knowing the history of this FOF from the draft on arbwiki) and may be best elsewhere?
Izno (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Adequately responding to even a simple complaint of source manipulation may require a significant expenditure of time or money just to evaluate whether an editor is lying. Not everyone has the time or resources to resolve this, and so issues go unresolved due to lack of resources which harms the editorial environment, encyclopedic quality and ultimately public information.
- I would be fine splitting that into its own principle. I suppose if @GeneralNotability, CaptainEek, and Moneytrees: (and my drafting companions) are good with it the change can be made. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Fine by me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Primefac no issues Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Of course. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Want to summon Wugapodes to this suggestion also. Izno (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Removing the content, moving it to its own principle, (or) what I had in mind was moving it into "Accessibility of sources". Any of the three do somewhat change the name/scope of the FOF, which is partially why I hadn't picked up on it. It's no real biggy to me to leave it in the FOF also, it just tends more "fact of life" than "fact of this case". Izno (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would be fine splitting that into its own principle. I suppose if @GeneralNotability, CaptainEek, and Moneytrees: (and my drafting companions) are good with it the change can be made. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Disputes over non-English-language sources
Difficulties evaluating reliability and due weight
6.1) In March 2020 a dispute occurred over whether a source (in Polish) was appropriate. The arguments for its inclusion relied heavily on sources also in Polish which English speaking editors were not able to read, exacerbating the dispute. (Paradisus Judaeorum summary)
- Support:
- To add on to the language issue, I was generally unimpressed by Piotr in this dispute. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 10:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Concur strongly with CaptainEek. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Difficulties in verifying claims due to differences in translation
6.2) In February 2023 another dispute occurred regarding the verifiability of a claim sourced to Polish sources, and the claim's verifiability hinged on how to interpret a Polish text. (k.e.coffman's evidence) From April to June 2021 a dispute occurred regarding potential BLP violations. The contentious claims were sourced exclusively to references in Polish, and whether the sources corroborated the contentious claims in the article depended on whether and how well an editor could translate from Polish. (BLP-related dispute at Jan Zaryn summary)
- Support:
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 10:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Assessment of Polish sources is further hindered for non-Polish speakers by the need to parse how the source's neutrality may be affected (tainted?) by the chilling effects of the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance Cabayi (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Identifying source misuse made harder by non-English-language sources
6.3) In 2020 an article was created sourced entirely to three Russian-language sources. Two of the three sources were on topics unrelated to the article subject, but this was not immediately noticed because editors could not read the Russian titles and no translation was provided. (2020 AE statement cited in k.e.coffman's evidence)
- Support:
- Emblematic of the issues with language and sources, albeit due to GizzyCatBella (Jacurek). But if socks can be using non-English sources to manipulate articles, then we have a problem. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note that this was created by GCB/Jacurek. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 10:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Failures of the content dispute resolution process
7) A Request for Comment (RfC) is an important method of dispute resolution during content disputes. However, Requests for Comment did not prove effective when used in this topic area, with RfCs failing to be closed at all, even after reasonable participation from involved and uninvolved editors (e.g. June 2021, July 2021, Sep 2021) or only closed after long delays (Jan 2021-Jan 22). While not every RfC needs a formal close, the lack of formal closes in this topic area meant that the consensus of editors would not actually be implemented and the related dispute was never resolved.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is quite bothersome, and probably deserves its own remedy. As with a few others, I don't know what that remedy looks like. Izno (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 10:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Izno: would like a remedy but no clue what it would look like. It is, to some degree, only remedied by getting more editors into the area and willing to close disputes. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
2021 AE Sourcing Report
Filing and closure
8.1) In February 2021, Buidhe filed an Arbitration Enforcement request alleging Volunteer Marek had violated the sourcing requirement present in the topic area. Uninvolved administrators expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of communication from Buidhe prior to filing an Arbitration Enforcement request. The close included a formal warning of Buidhe that communication is mandatory, especially regarding disagreements about content and sourcing, and that the additional sourcing requirements applied to this topic area do not change this. They are further warned that AE must not be used to "win" content disputes
.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- historical --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 10:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- I take particular note of SarahSV's comments there. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Sourcing requirement discussion
8.2) Among administrators who evaluated Volunteer Marek's use of sources there was agreement that some of those sources failed to live up to the standard of sourcing requirement, but this was not noted in the close. There was also minimal discussion among uninvolved administrators of the wording of the sourcing requirement which places the burden of justifying inclusion of sources on the person wishing to include them. Some administrators expressed a feeling that ArbCom needed to handle some of the thornier aspects of the sourcing restriction and its implementation itself, which was also noted in the close.
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- historical --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 10:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Incomplete enforcement
8.3) Buidhe was correctly warned for the lack of communication; discussion is still expected, even in a contentious topic, when considering whether a source is suitable for inclusion. The consensus of administrators failed to consider Volunteer Marek's culpability with improper sourcing, especially in light of several previous topic bans nor did they consider any potential battleground behavior by him, including during the enforcement request. In retrospect the focus exclusively on Buidhe's conduct, for which they had never been previously sanctioned, and concerns about the restriction itself had a negative impact on the topic area. The Committee is sensitive to the fact that, given the length of time the thread was open and the number of comments made by editors and uninvolved administrators, the situation was difficult to manage and adequately summarize. This can explain why the close focused on the two parts that were easy to summarize and find consensus about rather than coming to consensus on the merits of the filing itself.
- Support:
- I've read this AE report multiple times during this case. I'm not convinced at all, in the moment, that I would have acted differently or better than the admins who participated. In fact I suspect I would have only been helpful at the margin. ArbCom, as an intentionally deliberate body, has the chance to do some slow thinking in a way that's harder during a very busy AE report. We also have the chance to observe what happens afterwards. It's on these grounds that I support the shortcoming identified above not because I blame or want to reprimand the admin who were a part of it. Hopefully we've struck that balance with this finding because supporting admin who are willing to work difficult areas like this is important to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, I still agree with my comment here We bypassed the point that AE can be helpful. No matter what we do as AE admins it is responded to with aspersions, walls of text, etc. I have reached the point to suggest that arbcom needs to step in here. Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, American Politics, and Armenia-Azerbaijan are all less toxic of topic areas when they reach us.. This should have gone to ARCA instead. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Barkeep that this is in no way a judgement on the performance of the AE admins. The AE admins are extremely valuable and the Committee supports their discretion. But the Committee reserves the right to revisit AE matters, and here it is apparent that the issue with VM continued to simmer. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- This weaves just about the right story for me. Izno (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I accept this finding as accurate, but I also want to point out that it should not be viewed negatively on the admins in question who are doing a thankless task and doing it well. WormTT(talk) 10:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per Barkeep — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Concur with Barkeep. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
"Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" and outing
9) The authors of "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" listed the names and occupations of several Wikipedia editors who had disclosed their real-life identities at some point on Wikipedia. As stated in our policy regarding outing and harassment, The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research".
While multiple editors have indicated that Grabowski and Klein revealed more information than was stated on Wikipedia and one of the disclosures happened over ten years ago, the Committee does not feel that this constitutes a violation of the policy on off-wiki harassment. Posting information in a peer reviewed academic journal is not inappropriate communication, following, or any form of hounding.
Nor is authoring such a paper behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person
or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome or beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.
- Support:
- Much ado was made about the G&K paper's mention of a certain user's real life position. My thoughts on this were expressed at length in various case page discussions, which boil down to: this was standard in an academic setting, this was not outing, nor is it a UCOC violation. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per Eek. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Even if their actions do somehow violate some specific words in the UCOC, it does not violate the spirit. That speaks to a need for amendment at most. Izno (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- There are many factors to consider here, from intent to effect, the setting, the history and more. However, I agree with Eek, this does not cross the line to a violation in my view. WormTT(talk) 10:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- OUTING, and its doxxing subset, are behavioral policies. This is why we're here at ArbCom considering them. It has been my contention that we are here, first and foremost, to build an encyclopedia and we have behavioral policies to support that goal. As such when behavioral policies come into conflict with content policies, behavioral policies cannot automatically trump content discussions and discussions. And in this instance my evaluation ultimately matches Worm's for why the behavioral policies do not merit enforcement. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per Eek, Cabayi (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- per barkeep --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- While I buy that this is normal academic behavior and is thus not a policy violation (and it's certainly not a UCoC violation), I think there's a sense in which it was... uncool, so I would feel uneasy being in the support column for this one. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comments:
François Robere editing
10) François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly been sanctioned for edit warring, personal attacks, violating an interaction ban with GizzyCatBella, and hounding other editors. (Sanctions history) François Robere has at times shown a failure to get the point. (e.g. Jan Żaryn evidence summary)
- Support:
- FR has been a net negative in the topic area --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- One thing not mentioned in this FoF (or anywhere in the decision) is the evidence of FR's overlap with Icewhiz. I think FR's disruption comes from an unyielding point of view. Not coincidentally, it was this same monolithic view that got Icewhiz sanctioned in the first place. I think it's easy to criticize as its own disruptive way of editing, without having to go in the guilt by association with Icewhiz and that's what this FoF does. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Though I do not encourage the term "net negative" WormTT(talk) 10:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
François Robere and Volunteer Marek
11) François Robere and Volunteer Marek have repeatedly come into conflict with each other. Each has displayed uncivil behavior towards the other editor and engaged in battleground behavior about the other's edits and comments. (e.g. François Robere and Volunteer Marek edit summary)
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
GizzyCatBella editing
12) The Arbitration Committee determined that the accounts GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were operated by the same person based on a prior report to the checkusers and subsequent investigation by the Arbitration Committee during this case. GizzyCatBella was blocked by the committee during this case. (private evidence)
- Support:
- So I'm actually pretty open to a ROPE type unblock in the future but only if it would be accompanied by a topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep's comment here describes the investigation well. The chances that GCB and Jacurek are not the same person are about non-existent in my mind. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is as confirmed as it gets. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- This required hundreds of person hours of work over several months to happen. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this is quite the confirmed connection. I also would anticipate a (potentially wider) topic ban, given the previous history, should they ever successfully appeal their block(s). Izno (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Levivich and Volunteer Marek
13) Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have a history of disagreement with each other. In March 2023, ScottishFinnishRadish placed them under a 2-way interaction ban because The entire dynamic between you two is doing nothing but raising the temperature in the topic area.
(Levivich and Volunteer Marek edit summary)
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Knowing when to stop bickering and sniping is an important skill on Wikipedia. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- I have interacted enough with Levivich that I think it would be best if I abstain (recuse, technically, potato potahto) GeneralNotability (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comments:
My very best wishes' conduct during the case
14) During the case, My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (MVBW) participation was extensive, often strongly stated, not always backed by evidence, was sometimes contradicted by policies and guidelines, and often appeared to be motivated by a desire to defend the actions of Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (e.g. March 25, March 26, April 18, April 18, April 23, April 27, May 3). The cumulative impact of this participation was itself disruptive and normally failed to add anything that Piotrus and Volunteer Marek did not themselves defend better.
- Support:
- I can already see comments of people who are going to use this to say "see you should never participate at ArbCom." To that I would say, my opinion of several parties, notably Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, improved based on the evidence they submitted in this case and their participation in general, mainly at analysis. And, in-line with the principle "Participation on arbitration pages" we've not passed a similar FoF for Elinruby and TarangaBellam who had their own singular rough go at one point. I think, on the whole, by the time we've gotten to ArbCom parties are more likely to help themselves than hurt themselves by participating. This FoF is, therefore, an exception not a rule. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I generally agree with Barkeep. Participation can make or break. For me, Piotr's participation in this case is why there is only a reminder, not a ban, on the table for him. But as with all things, participation can be a double edged sword, and for MVBW I was repeatedly disappointed by the battleground behavior exhibited. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned is a good essay. I found Wishes constant denial of issues in the topic area to be disruptive, and their comments to feel like kneejerk reactions rather than well thought out. This is the sort of behavior that enables issues and can make contentious areas even more fraught. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- MVBW, mostly under the name Biophys, has a long history in this topic area and at arbcom going back more than a decade --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- You know, since there's discussion about the behavior here, I'm going to introduce this diff also. In it, MVBW casts the entirely unsupported aspersion on this ArbCom and its current 15 members that we are in cahoots with G&K to harass those under the microscope in their paper. That goes beyond MVBW's defense on the talk page of the edits in the FOF. Despite that we give leeway on these pages in some ways because of their nature as a conduct resolution forum, that doesn't mean we don't take notice when editors step wrong. Izno (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Piotrus editing
15) Since a February 2021 1 month topic ban for canvassing, Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created over 20 new articles and his contributions to the topic area have followed appropriate editor expectations. Piotrus has frequently helped to find consensus when there have been content disputes. (Summary of evidence involving Piotrus)
- Support:
- I must say, I've been fairly impressed by Piotr's work in the last couple of years. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- As someone who was an AE admin when much of this happened, I came with a preconceived notion of Piotr's editing in the topic area. What I found from the evidence is that I was wrong. The last several years of his editing has been exemplary. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have a few reservations but overall Piotrus is one of the few named or unnamed who seems to have followed the wiki way, not quite to the T but almost. The few I had were the interactions at Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust#Dubious Reviews and what Eek identified above. The former interaction shouldn't have taken as much time as it did to finally remove the source, and the latter I honestly just don't get. Sarah's comments there resonated with me, especially. However, it can be said that Piotrus treated those discussions with the level of civility expected of all editors. Izno (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am not unsympathetic to Izno's concerns. When I first examined those discussions it was roughly at the same time that I'd had to pretty firmly tell Piotrus to stop emailing me instead of talking to me onwiki so that was definitely a low point of my opinion of his conduct. I do think where Piotrus ended up with the The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society discussion compared to where he started is important and is part of why I've come (with the one exception I'll note in a moment) to have a very favorable impression of Piotrus' current editing in this topic area. I find a true willingness to go with the sources and facts take him and an ability to change his mind. And further his patient calm demenaor helps him work productively with editors who, in my opinion, display battleground behavior. Now I also think that he genuinely doesn't believe WP:CANVASS is a problem and his dislike of that guideline means he tries to stay with-in the letter, but not always the spirit, of the guideline. But the ways that this has proven troubling, at least since that 2021 topic ban, is far outweighed by the good he's done in other ways and I hope I've expressed just how much I see the balance of issues based on the evidence received on the side of good in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep says it well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Barkeep and others. Over the course of the case, I have generally found the conduct of Piotrus to have been, if not comendable, then at least within reasonable bounds. As Barkeep in particular pointed out in the analysis, a good deal of evidence was presented to demonstrate that Piotrus had in fact learned and worked to improve his editing in recent years, and this FoF captures that. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Volunteer Marek editing
16.1) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly been restricted for edit warring, violations of topic bans, and incivility in the topic area. (Previous sanctions of Volunteer Marek)
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
16.2) Volunteer Marek uses inaccurate or unhelpful edit summaries which make it difficult for other editors to evaluate the changes. (Accuracy of edit summaries)
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- With more emphasis on "unhelpful"; I think this falls in line with the "battleground" issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- I have been mulling this over for a few days now, and I do not think I can support this as written. While obviously our summary of evidence (or even the provided full evidence) is not an exhaustive list of problematic edits, nonetheless it is a relatively small amount compared to the total volume of edits over a similar time period. Has Volunteer Marek made unhelpful and/or inaccurate edit summaries in the past? Yes. Is this a regular occurrence? I do not think so. I supported this initially because it was just one more thing to add to the list of issues we had found with their editing, but I have not used it as the basis for any of my Remedy decisions, and thus find that it is somewhat unfair to characterise it as such. I might support a "has used" rewording, but on the other hand we have all undoubtedly used cryptic, sarcastic, or outright rude edit summaries at one point or another in our editing careers. Primefac (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- Comments:
16.3) Volunteer Marek has a history of using reverts and edit wars to win content disputes. (Holocaust in Poland edits (Volunteer Marek); History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II; BLP-related dispute at Jan Zaryn; Editing of Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance; Dispute at History policy of the Law and Justice party)
- Support:
- The interplay between 16.2 and 16.3 is worth noting as an issue that compounds each. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
16.4) Volunteer Marek has shown a pattern of battleground behavior in talk page discussions and edits. (e.g. BLP-related dispute at Jan Zaryn, History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II, History of the Jews in Poland edit summaries)
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
16.5) Volunteer Marek has been harassed on and off-wiki by Icewhiz and Icewhiz socks. Volunteer Marek has often correctly identified editors as socks of Icewhiz. Volunteer Marek has also accused Levivich and François Robere of being Icewhiz's "friends" and twice called Icewhiz a co-author
of "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". (Volunteer Marek accusations towards others about Icewhiz edit summary, private evidence)
- Support:
- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Icewhiz's harassment of VM has been severe. But that is not an excuse to bad behavior on VM's part. In many ways, I fear that the harassment of VM by Icewhiz has long masked the problems with VM himself. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- A fair acknowledgement of potential mitigating circumstances. Izno (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- VM has been subject to creepy and extensive harassment. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Harassment is mitigating and editors should be sensitive to it, but it does not absolve an editor from responsibility for their conduct. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation for a white paper on research best practices
1) The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.
This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.
- Support:
- GeneralNotability (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- With or without an adjustment regarding PII. It's something we can also followup with Maggie on if/when this remedy passes. Izno (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I like this idea, and if nothing else comes out of the decision, I hope this does. I support with or without adjustment regarding PII. WormTT(talk) 11:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- We're going to see more and more papers/reports such as this as the years go on, because Wikipedia is very much In The Real World. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- With or without adjustments for PII; worst case we can follow up with Maggie to give more detail. I also appreciate that WTT like the idea, and I hope we try more remedies like this in the future. — Wug·a·po·des 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I support this. But I also recognize that Community Resilience & Sustainability has fewer resources now than a year ago and so don't know how this will fit into their overall work. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per Moneytrees, Wikipedia is In The Real World, a top result in web searches, a corpus for training AI, and more. We can't escape real world scrutiny. The best we can hope for is that the scrutiny is respectful of our volunteer editors. Offering guidance to researchers is a necessary first step. Cabayi (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- An inventive solution that I hope works, but I'm not getting my hopes up too much. The Foundation will likely be rather short-staffed this year. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comments:
- I am sympathetic to Tyrpto's comment on the talk page about making sure this white paper goes into PII about editors. Fiarly flexible in how we acheive that but it's a major motivator for this remedy and I don't think it should be lost. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think a 'copyedit' is fine to add it in, probably just in the first sentence add
about Wikipedians and their personal information.
Izno (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)- Yes that would do it. Ping GeneralNotability and Guerillero noting I've done that addition and they should feel free to revert me if they disagree with it. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Fine by me. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes that would do it. Ping GeneralNotability and Guerillero noting I've done that addition and they should feel free to revert me if they disagree with it. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think a 'copyedit' is fine to add it in, probably just in the first sentence add
- Just as a procedural note, unless I state otherwise I am fine with any copyedits made to this motion. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sourcing restriction
Reliable sourcing restriction (clarification)
2) Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:
All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
- Support:
- It is high time to raise the bar on sourcing, given the extensive issues shown. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- First choice. Primefac (