< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Case | World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:47, 11 May 2023 view sourceIzno (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Interface administrators, Administrators114,331 edits →2021 AE Sourcing Report: why do we make this hard for ourselves← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:48, 11 May 2023 view source Cabayi (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators142,239 edits →Age of evidence: supNext edit →
Line 267:		Line 267:
	:# --] <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)		:# --] <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
	:# 2 things. 1) There are other parties than those Barkeep mentions whose behavior was suboptimal in the evidence that are currently also unnamed. Just to make clear that there are two groups here. 2) I would add to his 2 groups the administrators at AE as a group I would encourage to look at those with a history in this area quite closely. ] (]) 19:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)		:# 2 things. 1) There are other parties than those Barkeep mentions whose behavior was suboptimal in the evidence that are currently also unnamed. Just to make clear that there are two groups here. 2) I would add to his 2 groups the administrators at AE as a group I would encourage to look at those with a history in this area quite closely. ] (]) 19:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
			:# Context is everything here. Old evidence can be a pointer to a submission which is just a long-held grudge or evidence of a long running problem. ] (]) 19:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

	:Oppose:		:Oppose:

Revision as of 19:48, 11 May 2023

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)

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages 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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve (§ Arbitration Policy). From time to time the committee may revisit previous cases to review new allegations of editor misconduct and to examine the effectiveness of enforcement systems. It is not the purpose of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes nor to adjudicate outside criticism.

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
GeneralNotability (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Any non-Wikipedians reading this should pay especial attention to this. The Arbitration Committee's mandate is to solve conduct, not content. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Limitations of arbitration

3) Despite employing more formal procedures than other aspects of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and with-in the scope of the case are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be taken out of context or misused by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Support:

Given the external attention this case has drawn this seems important to note. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
As much as I sometimes make comparisons to the legal system since it is what I am familiar with, Misplaced Pages does not, and should not ever, reflect the real world legal systems. The Arbitration process is unique to Misplaced Pages and has evolved to meet Misplaced Pages specific needs. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Healthy and unhealthy conflict

4) Conflict is unavoidable and an inherent part of processes like the bold, revert, discuss cycle and deletion discussions. These processes work effectively when editors engage in healthy conflict by debating ideas, openly providing information, and seeking mutual understanding of an issue. Sniping criticism, ad hominem arguments, and incivility are harmful to other editors and the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. While healthy conflict is essential to building an encyclopedia, editors who engage in unhealthy conflict may be sanctioned.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Battleground conduct

5) Misplaced Pages 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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Topic area burnout

6) Repeatedly encountering bludgeoning, battleground tactics, and a lack of support from dispute resolution processes can lead to editors leaving the topic area or ceasing to productively engage in the consensus-building process, such as by adopting battleground tactics themselves or ceasing to file misconduct reports.

Support:

I'll note this in the FoF as well, but this was a real issue in this case. I'm not sure we've hit on the right remedy yet or even if there is a right remedy. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Barkeep says it well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
CaptainEek ⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Verifiability of foreign language texts

7) Claims on the English Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Accessibility of sources

8) Many citations on the English Misplaced Pages are to online resources, and this is unsurprising for an online encyclopedia. Online sources are easier to access and easier for editors to verify. Still, many reliable sources are not readily available to everyone online, so reliable sources should not be rejected merely because they are difficult or costly to access. Special care should be taken when using difficult-to-access sources, especially when used to support contentious claims. Editors should take care to provide full bibliographic information, such as the source's reference number or an in-source quotation, to help editors and readers find and verify the claims in the sources.

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Reconciling the Free encyclopedia in a world where most things are not free will always be a challenge. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Many of us as editors have access that others do not: certain libraries, institutional subscriptions, the funds to buy books. This is incredibly valuable; most of my articles have been written only because I had institutional access or had been able to buy a book. But this also requires some extra work on the part of editors who have this privileged information. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
GeneralNotability (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Source manipulation is a conduct issue

9) By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the material referenced to that source fairly and accurately reflects the intent of the original source. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. An editor who repeatedly or intentionally fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research may be sanctioned. Merely because disruption involves sources does not make said disruption a "content issue" outside of administrative reach.

Support:

ArbCom has a fine line to walk here, but that last sentence is important. "I disagree with whether we should use this source" is a content issue. The behavior described in this principle is, however, one of conduct and appropriate for Arbitration Committee review. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Per Barkeep. Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
GeneralNotability (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Whether purposeful of not, misrepresentations of sources constitute disruptive editing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
CaptainEek ⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fair criticism

10) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, with evidence and without resorting to personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the most appropriate dispute resolution mechanism.

Support:

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 Misplaced Pages (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)
GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
We are not the off-wiki civility police. We should only be tackling off-wiki conduct when it is severe. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Responding to harassment

12) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others, or who genuinely perceives themself to have been harassed or attacked—whether on Misplaced Pages or off—should not see that harassment as an excuse for violating Misplaced Pages policy. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards, especially where the harassment has been protracted or severe.

Support:

I strongly believe this to be true. But I will also note that it comes from the Lightbreater case where very strong remedies were still enacted. So this is definitely a place where reasonable people can come to differing conclusions about how to weigh this. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Being the target of harassment may be a mitigating factor to be considered, but it is not a blanket excuse for one's own poor behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I thought of this idea, and the Lightbreather case, extensively during this case. Harassment is terrible. But it is not a get out of jail free card. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
With the reservations above. Izno (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
As everyone else says. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Age of evidence

13) The arbitration policy does not place strict limits on the age of evidence that may be submitted in an arbitration case, although the Arbitration Committee will sometimes preemptively limit the scope of a case to a specific period of time. The Committee may choose to disregard or give less weight to evidence that is not recent.

Support:

Several parties are not being named in this case because of this principle. If there were to return to the topic area after this case and engage in similar behavior to what they did in the past I will be quite willing, as an individual administrator, to levy sanction and/or to encourage the Committee to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The older something is, the less weight I give it. Generally I ignore anything older than 10 years, unless extreme. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2 things. 1) There are other parties than those Barkeep mentions whose behavior was suboptimal in the evidence that are currently also unnamed. Just to make clear that there are two groups here. 2) I would add to his 2 groups the administrators at AE as a group I would encourage to look at those with a history in this area quite closely. Izno (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Context is everything here. Old evidence can be a pointer to a submission which is just a long-held grudge or evidence of a long running problem. Cabayi (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Considering my position here as I have been on the receiving end of the "some of this evidence is old" routine as a case partipant, when I was trying to demonstrate a long-term pattern. It can be very frustrating for users to know what this committee wants and what it will find compelling, although that doesn't seem to be the exact issue at play in this specific case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Like you noted elsewhere for harassment this is a "may choose" situation. We definitely note some long-term patterns for some editors in this case. But there are a few parties, with one in particular, whose conduct I found quite poor. But that editor has also stopped editing in the topic area. To add an FoF and topic ban for an area that the editor has stepped away from of their own violition feels unduly harsh and unfair. So it's this second kind of editor that I am thinking about while supporting this principle, not the editor for whom there is evidence going back years and years and years. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Participation on arbitration pages

14) Policy states: "All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so." The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Support:

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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages PAG, while still respecting the UCoC.

Support:

I expect this might generate some discussion among the community and among arbs so I might have more to say about this later. But I do think this an important principle in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

I do not think we can enforce the UCOC without an enabling act by the community. I would much rather we stick to local policy, which, as the principle says, is more strict anyways --Guerillero 19:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

I think the issue I take with this remedy (and I gave this feedback in private) is whether the English Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages editors enough credit for how we got here, because it could be read as "the UCOC came first and then we made local interpretation better" rather than "the local implementation came first and the UCOC came later". Izno (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I share Izno's concern, and also just don't want to even really mention the UCoC at all. We were elected to enforce en.wp policies, and that is what we should be focussing on. This case is overly-complicated anough without drawing the UCoC into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Contra your objection, I think it is important to make clear what our role is in that process, despite the local dissatisfaction with how the UCOC came to be. I just do not know in which ArbCom case that becomes most relevant. Given the large discussion on enforcing the case on these pages, I think now might be as reasonable as later, and gives a starting point for future ArbComs in case there ever is some disagreement between the U4C and ArbCom. Izno (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

In almost all cases, as you mentioned, we already have local policies that meet or exceed the standards of the UCoC, so for me this is less about dissatisfaction than about relevance. I would really like a yes-or-no answer to the question "can the U4C overrule or overturn arbcom" but I don't see how this case is the forum to hash that out, especially given that the U4C doesn't even exist yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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 Camps" 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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

"Misplaced Pages's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" background and use in the case

2.1) "Misplaced Pages'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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

2.2) While the case was opened in response to "Misplaced Pages'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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editors and administrators have left the topic area

3) Several editors, including some who are party to the case, have noted that they have left the topic area owing to what they found as an unpleasant and unrewarding editing environment. Two uninvolved administrators also noted their reluctance to issue sanctions in the topic area following previous unpleasant experiences when doing so. (Preliminary statements)

Support:

GeneralNotability (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
As I noted in the related principle, I find this an important fact to think about and I'm not sure we've found a remedy to address this. Or if there is even a remedy to address this. But I think it's incumbent on us to at least try when it's as true as it is in this topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it is important as an FOF as it may weight more or less on which remedies are chosen below. Izno (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
CaptainEek ⚓ 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2022-23 activity in the topic area

4) Between January 2022 and the publication of "Misplaced Pages's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" there was only 1 Arbitration Enforcement request and minimal reports at other noticeboards. The Arbitration Committee and Trust and Safety each received a report about an editor in this topic area during that time. (Disruption in the topic area over time evidence summary) In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine and many editors interested in this topic area focused their editing on that. (Preliminary statements of Elinruby, Ealdgyth, Paul Siebert, Volunteer Marek)

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Don't love the final sentence, but I'll take it. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
CaptainEek ⚓ 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Source manipulation complaints are difficult but necessary

5) Of the over 100 sources referenced in evidence (Bibliography), approximately 25 were in a language other than English and approximately 33 were freely available online for review. The remaining sources required access to library resources either in-person or online, and even then some sources were not accessible. Adequately responding to even a simple complaint of source manipulation may require a significant expenditure of time or money just to evaluate whether an editor is lying. Not everyone has the time or resources to resolve this, and so issues go unresolved due to lack of resources which harms the editorial environment, encyclopedic quality and ultimately public information. (Mariusz Bechta, History of the Jews in Poland)

Support:

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)

Disputes over non-English-language sources

Difficulties evaluating reliability and due weight

6.1) In March 2020 a dispute occurred over whether a source (in Polish) was appropriate. The arguments for its inclusion relied heavily on sources also in Polish which English speaking editors were not able to read, exacerbating the dispute. (Paradisus Judaeorum summary)

Support:

To add on to the language issue, I was generally unimpressed by Piotr in this dispute. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Difficulties in verifying claims due to differences in translation

6.2) In February 2023 another dispute occurred regarding the verifiability of a claim sourced to Polish sources, and the claim's verifiability hinged on how to interpret a Polish text. (k.e.coffman's evidence) From April to June 2021 a dispute occurred regarding potential BLP violations. The contentious claims were sourced exclusively to references in Polish, and whether the sources corroborated the contentious claims in the article depended on whether and how well an editor could translate from Polish. (BLP-related dispute at Jan Zaryn summary)

Support:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Failures of the content dispute resolution process

7) A Request for Comment (RfC) is an important method of dispute resolution during content disputes. However, Requests for Comment did not prove effective when used in this topic area, with RfCs failing to be closed at all, even after reasonable participation from involved and uninvolved editors (e.g. June 2021, July 2021, Sep 2021) or only closed after long delays (Jan 2021-Jan 22). While not every RfC needs a formal close, the lack of formal closes in this topic area meant that the consensus of editors would not actually be implemented and the related dispute was never resolved.

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2021 AE Sourcing Report

Filing and closure

8.1) In February 2021, Buidhe filed an Arbitration Enforcement request alleging Volunteer Marek had violated the sourcing requirement present in the topic area. Uninvolved administrators expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of communication from Buidhe prior to filing an Arbitration Enforcement request. The close included a formal warning of Buidhe that communication is mandatory, especially regarding disagreements about content and sourcing, and that the additional sourcing requirements applied to this topic area do not change this. They are further warned that AE must not be used to "win" content disputes.

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
historical --Guerillero 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sourcing requirement discussion

8.2) Among administrators who evaluated Volunteer Marek's use of sources there was agreement that some of those sources failed to live up to the standard of sourcing requirement, but this was not noted in the close. There was also minimal discussion among uninvolved administrators of the wording of the sourcing requirement which places the burden of justifying inclusion of sources on the person wishing to include them. Some administrators expressed a feeling that ArbCom needed to handle some of the thornier aspects of the sourcing restriction and its implementation itself, which was also noted in the close.

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
historical --Guerillero 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Incomplete enforcement

8.3) Buidhe was correctly warned for the lack of communication; discussion is still expected, even in a contentious topic, when considering whether a source is suitable for inclusion. The consensus of administrators failed to consider Volunteer Marek's culpability with improper sourcing, especially in light of several previous topic bans nor did they consider any potential battleground behavior by him, including during the enforcement request. In retrospect the focus exclusively on Buidhe's conduct, for which they had never been previously sanctioned, and concerns about the restriction itself had a negative impact on the topic area. The Committee is sensitive to the fact that, given the length of time the thread was open and the number of comments made by editors and uninvolved administrators, the situation was difficult to manage and adequately summarize. This can explain why the close focused on the two parts that were easy to summarize and find consensus about rather than coming to consensus on the merits of the filing itself.

Support:

I've read this AE report multiple times during this case. I'm not convinced at all, in the moment, that I would have acted differently or better than the admins who participated. In fact I suspect I would have only been helpful at the margin. ArbCom, as an intentionally deliberate body, has the chance to do some slow thinking in a way that's harder during a very busy AE report. We also have the chance to observe what happens afterwards. It's on these grounds that I support the shortcoming identified above not because I blame or want to reprimand the admin who were a part of it. Hopefully we've struck that balance with this finding because supporting admin who are willing to work difficult areas like this is important to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I am slightly less thrilled than BK49, but I think this strikes a middle path forward. --Guerillero 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

"Misplaced Pages's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" and outing

9) The authors of "Misplaced Pages's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" listed the names and occupations of several Misplaced Pages editors who had disclosed their real-life identities at some point on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages and one of the disclosures happened over ten years ago, the Committee does not feel that this constitutes a violation of 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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
FR has been a net negative in the topic area --Guerillero 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

François Robere and Volunteer Marek

11) François Robere and Volunteer Marek have repeatedly come into conflict with each other. Each has displayed uncivil behavior towards the other editor and engaged in battleground behavior about the other's edits and comments. (e.g. François Robere and Volunteer Marek edit summary)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

GizzyCatBella editing

12) The Arbitration Committee determined that the accounts GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were operated by the same person based on a prior report to the checkusers and subsequent investigation by the Arbitration Committee during this case. GizzyCatBella was blocked by the committee during this case. (private evidence)

Support:

So I'm actually pretty open to a ROPE type unblock in the future but only if it would be accompanied by a topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Barkeep's comment here describes the investigation well. The chances that GCB and Jacurek are not the same person are about non-existent in my mind. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

I have interacted enough with Levivich that I think it would be best if I abstain (recuse, technically, potato potahto) GeneralNotability (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

My very best wishes' conduct during the case

14) During the case, My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (MVBW) participation was extensive, often strongly stated, not always backed by evidence, was sometimes contradicted by policies and guidelines, and often appeared to be motivated by a desire to defend the actions of Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (e.g. March 25, March 26, April 18, April 18, April 23, April 27, May 3). The cumulative impact of this participation was itself disruptive and normally failed to add anything that Piotrus and Volunteer Marek did not themselves defend better.

Support:

I can already see comments of people who are going to use this to say "see you should never participate at ArbCom." To that I would say, my opinion of several parties, notably Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, improved based on the evidence they submitted in this case and their participation in general, mainly at analysis. And, in-line with the principle "Participation on arbitration pages" we've not passed a similar FoF for Elinruby and TarangaBellam who had their own singular rough go at one point. I think, on the whole, by the time we've gotten to ArbCom parties are more likely to help themselves than hurt themselves by participating. This FoF is, therefore, an exception not a rule. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Volunteer Marek editing

16.1) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly been restricted for edit warring, violations of topic bans, and incivility in the topic area. (Previous sanctions of Volunteer Marek)

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

16.2) Volunteer Marek uses inaccurate or unhelpful edit summaries which make it difficult for other editors to evaluate the changes. (Accuracy of edit summaries)

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

16.3) Volunteer Marek has a history of using reverts and edit wars to win content disputes. (Holocaust in Poland edits (Volunteer Marek); History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II; BLP-related dispute at Jan Zaryn; Editing of Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance; Dispute at History policy of the Law and Justice party)

Support:

The interplay between 16.2 and 16.3 is worth noting as an issue that compounds each. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

16.4) Volunteer Marek has shown a pattern of battleground behavior in talk page discussions and edits. (e.g. BLP-related dispute at Jan Zaryn, History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II, History of the Jews in Poland edit summaries)

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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 Icwhiz. Volunteer Marek has also accused Levivich and François Robere of being Icewhiz's "friends" and twice called Icewhiz a co-author of "Misplaced Pages’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". (Volunteer Marek accusations towards others about Icewhiz edit summary, private evidence)

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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 in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.

This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.

Support:

GeneralNotability (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 journals, 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, and enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

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:

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:

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)

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:

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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Volunteer Marek banned

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 vote, 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)

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:

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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Per my comment at #Levivich and Volunteer Marek. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

Oppose:

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:

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)

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

Oppose:

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:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Noting for community attention that this is not our normal wording for this. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and 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-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or 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: 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. 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. 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. 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.

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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
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-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
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:

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.

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.
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.
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.

Category:

Cases