Revision as of 20:53, 11 May 2023

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 arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
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 ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

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

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. 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)
6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. 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:

1. Given the external attention this case has drawn this seems important to note. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. 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)
6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Topic area burnout

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

Support:

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)
2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Izno (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Barkeep says it well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
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 ⚓ 19:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Izno (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. 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:

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)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Barkeep. Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Whether purposeful of not, misrepresentations of sources constitute disruptive editing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

On-wiki and off-wiki behaviour

11) Behaviour of editors on-wiki and off-wiki are not subject to the same standards. Conduct which may be considered acceptable in the open and transparent atmosphere of 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Izno (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. 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)
6. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. Cabayi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. 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:

1. 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)
2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
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 ⚓ 19:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. With the reservations above. Izno (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. As everyone else says. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. 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:

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)
2. 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)
3. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)

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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Izno (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Recidivism

15) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behavior are expected to improve their behavior, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. --Guerillero 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Universal Code of Conduct

16) The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. The English 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:

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)
2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

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 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)

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)

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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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 20:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

1. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. --Guerillero 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

1. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. --Guerillero 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editors and administrators have left the topic area

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

Support:

1. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
4. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. --Guerillero 20:46, 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Izno (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Don't love the final sentence, but I'll take it. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
6. I think the factual section is factual based on the evidence --Guerillero 20:47, 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:

1. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Some of this still strikes me as a bit of a principle (knowing the history of this FOF from the draft on arbwiki) and may be best elsewhere?

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:

1. To add on to the language issue, I was generally unimpressed by Piotr in this dispute. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. --Guerillero 20:48, 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:

1. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. --Guerillero 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Identifying source misuse made harder by non-English-language sources

6.3) In 2020 an article was created sourced entirely to three Russian-language sources. Two of the three sources were on topics unrelated to the article subject, but this was not immediately noticed because editors could not read the Russian titles and no translation was provided. (2020 AE statement cited in k.e.coffman's evidence)

Support:

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 ⚓ 19:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Note that this was created by GCB/Jacurek. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. --Guerillero 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Failures of the content dispute resolution process

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

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. --Guerillero 20:49, 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. historical --Guerillero 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:29, 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. historical --Guerillero 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 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:

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)
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 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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 ⚓ 20:03, 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 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 ⚓ 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Eek. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

1. FR has been a net negative in the topic area --Guerillero 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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)

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)
2. --Guerillero 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

GizzyCatBella editing

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

Support:

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)
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)
3. This is as confirmed as it gets. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. This required hundreds of person hours of work over several months to happen. --Guerillero 20:50, 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Knowing when to stop bickering and sniping is an important skill on Misplaced Pages. --Guerillero 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
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 ⚓ 20:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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)

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 ⚓ 20:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Volunteer Marek editing

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

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:16, 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:16, 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:

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)
2. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:16, 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:16, 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 Icewhiz. 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:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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 ⚓ 20:16, 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:

1. 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:

1. It is high time to raise the bar on sourcing, given the extensive issues shown. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'd recommend arbs review arbwiki for the difference between clarification and threshold. Izno (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

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 ⚓ 20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'd also recommend arbs review arbwiki for this one as well. Izno (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

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)
2. MVBW was president of the Piotr and VM fanclub, which is for one a bit creepy, and two, wildly unhelpful. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:20, 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:

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)
2. At a minimum. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:18, 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:

1. Per my rationale in the comments. — Wug·a·po·des 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 ⚓ 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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 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)

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 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)

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:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. 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:

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 ⚓ 20:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

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)

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:

1. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

1. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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