< 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 18:39, 12 May 2023 view sourceMoneytrees (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators29,763 edits →Volunteer Marek bans: Support both topic bans equally← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:39, 12 May 2023 view source Cabayi (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators142,239 edits →Universal Code of Conduct: supNext edit →
Line 376:		Line 376:
	:# We are in the un-enviable position of serving multiple masters. We do serve and are members of the English Misplaced Pages community, but we also serve and are members of the wider Wikimedia projects community. I choose not to ignore that wider view, even if I offer more weight to the local community's wishes. I appreciate the concerns below, and would support an alternative proposal, but I do think this topic should be mentioned. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)		:# We are in the un-enviable position of serving multiple masters. We do serve and are members of the English Misplaced Pages community, but we also serve and are members of the wider Wikimedia projects community. I choose not to ignore that wider view, even if I offer more weight to the local community's wishes. I appreciate the concerns below, and would support an alternative proposal, but I do think this topic should be mentioned. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
	:# ] (]) 07:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)		:# ] (]) 07:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
			:# I'm not convinced that every point of UCoC is covered by enwiki policy. However UCoC was approved and its enforcement guidelines were approved. It's incumbent on every admin, functionary, and the ArbCom to ensure it's applied. We may as well get used to noting UCoC infractions even if we handle them where possible as enwiki policy violations. ] (]) 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

	:Oppose:		:Oppose:

Revision as of 18:39, 12 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)
Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 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)
Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 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)
Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 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)
Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 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)
Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 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)
Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 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)
Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Harassment is a mitigating factor, and should be considered, but as my colleague have explained - it can only mitigate so far. Worm(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 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)
Primefac (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 17:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
We are in the un-enviable position of serving multiple masters. We do serve and are members of the English Misplaced Pages community, but we also serve and are members of the wider Wikimedia projects community. I choose not to ignore that wider view, even if I offer more weight to the local community's wishes. I appreciate the concerns below, and would support an alternative proposal, but I do think this topic should be mentioned. Worm(talk) 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that every point of UCoC is covered by enwiki policy. However UCoC was approved and its enforcement guidelines were approved. It's incumbent on every admin, functionary, and the ArbCom to ensure it's applied. We may as well get used to noting UCoC infractions even if we handle them where possible as enwiki policy violations. Cabayi (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

Pretending that the UCoC doesn't exist feels like an express train towards someone making a (superficially at least) compelling case that there's been a systemic failure to enforce it and have the U4C do something really counterproductive. Global Policies are Global Policies even if I think the UCoC itself should have been ratified rather than imposed by the board. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that pretending it does not exist is not viable in the long term, but I don't see how that obligates us to mention it in this specific case when we have local policies that cover all the same territory. Nobody can argue that we did not follow the UCoC if we actually hold users to a higher bar than it requires. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the change discussed by Izno and NBB on the talk page to make note that the enwiki policies preceded the UCoC (but still go beyond the minimums) is a good one and I would support making that edit above. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
CaptainEek ⚓ 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Russavia-Biophys was missed, but the summary is good. Eastern Europe joins India-Pakistan, Israel-Palestine, and Armenia-Azerbaijan in the list of the longest running arbcom sagas. What makes it unique is the core dramatis personae who keep on appearing in cases close to 20 years later. --Guerillero 20:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 07:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
The T&S report suggested to me that it would've been better if the Warsaw case was accepted. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the final section is factual based on the evidence --Guerillero 20:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 07:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Source manipulation complaints are difficult but necessary

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

Support:

GeneralNotability (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
CaptainEek ⚓ 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I support this version, or the split proposed below Worm(talk) 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
This or the split. I'm also fine simply removing the portion that would be split since I'm not sure we really need a new principle beyond 7, 8, and 9. I will say that I've spend a few dollars on subscriptions for access to sources brought up in this case. While I'm fine with that, I think it's worth noting that it's a pretty big ask of any random patrolling admin. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

I would be fine splitting that into its own principle. I suppose if @GeneralNotability, CaptainEek, and Moneytrees: (and my drafting companions) are good with it the change can be made. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. CaptainEek ⚓ 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac no issues Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Want to summon Wugapodes to this suggestion also. Izno (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing the content, moving it to its own principle, (or) what I had in mind was moving it into "Accessibility of sources". Any of the three do somewhat change the name/scope of the FOF, which is partially why I hadn't picked up on it. It's no real biggy to me to leave it in the FOF also, it just tends more "fact of life" than "fact of this case". Izno (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 10:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 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:

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)
Note that this was created by GCB/Jacurek. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 10:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Failures of the content dispute resolution process

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

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
CaptainEek ⚓ 19:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 20:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
This is quite bothersome, and probably deserves its own remedy. As with a few others, I don't know what that remedy looks like. Izno (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 10:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Izno: would like a remedy but no clue what it would look like. It is, to some degree, only remedied by getting more editors into the area and willing to close disputes. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Incomplete enforcement

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

Support:

I've read this AE report multiple times during this case. I'm not convinced at all, in the moment, that I would have acted differently or better than the admins who participated. In fact I suspect I would have only been helpful at the margin. ArbCom, as an intentionally deliberate body, has the chance to do some slow thinking in a way that's harder during a very busy AE report. We also have the chance to observe what happens afterwards. It's on these grounds that I support the shortcoming identified above not because I blame or want to reprimand the admin who were a part of it. Hopefully we've struck that balance with this finding because supporting admin who are willing to work difficult areas like this is important to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, I still agree with my comment here We bypassed the point that AE can be helpful. No matter what we do as AE admins it is responded to with aspersions, walls of text, etc. I have reached the point to suggest that arbcom needs to step in here. Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, American Politics, and Armenia-Azerbaijan are all less toxic of topic areas when they reach us.. This should have gone to ARCA instead. --Guerillero 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Barkeep that this is in no way a judgement on the performance of the AE admins. The AE admins are extremely valuable and the Committee supports their discretion. But the Committee reserves the right to revisit AE matters, and here it is apparent that the issue with VM continued to simmer. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
This weaves just about the right story for me. Izno (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I accept this finding as accurate, but I also want to point out that it should not be viewed negatively on the admins in question who are doing a thankless task and doing it well. Worm(talk) 10:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Per Barkeep — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

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)
Per Eek. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if their actions do somehow violate some specific words in the UCOC, it does not violate the spirit. That speaks to a need for amendment at most. Izno (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
There are many factors to consider here, from intent to effect, the setting, the history and more. However, I agree with Eek, this does not cross the line to a violation in my view. Worm(talk) 10:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

FR has been a net negative in the topic area --Guerillero 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
CaptainEek ⚓ 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
One thing not mentioned in this FoF (or anywhere in the decision) is the evidence of FR's overlap with Icewhiz. I think FR's disruption comes from an unyielding point of view. Not coincidentally, it was this same monolithic view that got Icewhiz sanctioned in the first place. I think it's easy to criticize as its own disruptive way of editing, without having to go in the guilt by association with Icewhiz and that's what this FoF does. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Though I do not encourage the term "net negative" Worm(talk) 10:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
This is as confirmed as it gets. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
This required hundreds of person hours of work over several months to happen. --Guerillero 20:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is quite the confirmed connection. I also would anticipate a (potentially wider) topic ban, given the previous history, should they ever successfully appeal their block(s). Izno (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Levivich and Volunteer Marek

13) Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have a history of disagreement with each other. In March 2023, ScottishFinnishRadish placed them under a 2-way interaction ban because The entire dynamic between you two is doing nothing but raising the temperature in the topic area. (Levivich and Volunteer Marek edit summary)

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
CaptainEek ⚓ 20:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Knowing when to stop bickering and sniping is an important skill on Misplaced Pages. --Guerillero 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Comments:

My very best wishes' conduct during the case

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

Support:

I can already see comments of people who are going to use this to say "see you should never participate at ArbCom." To that I would say, my opinion of several parties, notably Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, improved based on the evidence they submitted in this case and their participation in general, mainly at analysis. And, in-line with the principle "Participation on arbitration pages" we've not passed a similar FoF for Elinruby and TarangaBellam who had their own singular rough go at one point. I think, on the whole, by the time we've gotten to ArbCom parties are more likely to help themselves than hurt themselves by participating. This FoF is, therefore, an exception not a rule. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I generally agree with Barkeep. Participation can make or break. For me, Piotr's participation in this case is why there is only a reminder, not a ban, on the table for him. But as with all things, participation can be a double edged sword, and for MVBW I was repeatedly disappointed by the battleground behavior exhibited. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned is a good essay. I found Wishes constant denial of issues in the topic area to be disruptive, and their comments to feel like kneejerk reactions rather than well thought out. This is the sort of behavior that enables issues and can make contentious areas even more fraught. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
MVBW, mostly under the name Biophys, has a long history in this topic area and at arbcom going back more than a decade --Guerillero 20:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
You know, since there's discussion about the behavior here, I'm going to introduce this diff also. In it, MVBW casts the entirely unsupported aspersion on this ArbCom and its current 15 members that we are in cahoots with G&K to harass those under the microscope in their paper. That goes beyond MVBW's defense on the talk page of the edits in the FOF. Despite that we give leeway on these pages in some ways because of their nature as a conduct resolution forum, that doesn't mean we don't take notice when editors step wrong. Izno (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Piotrus editing

15) Since a February 2021 1 month topic ban for canvassing, Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created over 20 new articles and his contributions to the topic area have followed appropriate editor expectations. Piotrus has frequently helped to find consensus when there have been content disputes. (Summary of evidence involving Piotrus)

Support:

I must say, I've been fairly impressed by Piotr's work in the last couple of years. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
As someone who was an AE admin when much of this happened, I came with a preconceived notion of Piotr's editing in the topic area. What I found from the evidence is that I was wrong. The last several years of his editing has been exemplary. --Guerillero 20:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I have a few reservations but overall Piotrus is one of the few named or unnamed who seems to have followed the wiki way, not quite to the T but almost. The few I had were the interactions at Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust#Dubious Reviews and what Eek identified above. The former interaction shouldn't have taken as much time as it did to finally remove the source, and the latter I honestly just don't get. Sarah's comments there resonated with me, especially. However, it can be said that Piotrus treated those discussions with the level of civility expected of all editors. Izno (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not unsympathetic to Izno's concerns. When I first examined those discussions it was roughly at the same time that I'd had to pretty firmly tell Piotrus to stop emailing me instead of talking to me onwiki so that was definitely a low point of my opinion of his conduct. I do think where Piotrus ended up with the The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society discussion compared to where he started is important and is part of why I've come (with the one exception I'll note in a moment) to have a very favorable impression of Piotrus' current editing in this topic area. I find a true willingness to go with the sources and facts take him and an ability to change his mind. And further his patient calm demenaor helps him work productively with editors who, in my opinion, display battleground behavior. Now I also think that he genuinely doesn't believe WP:CANVASS is a problem and his dislike of that guideline means he tries to stay with-in the letter, but not always the spirit, of the guideline. But the ways that this has proven troubling, at least since that 2021 topic ban, is far outweighed by the good he's done in other ways and I hope I've expressed just how much I see the balance of issues based on the evidence received on the side of good in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Barkeep says it well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Barkeep and others. Over the course of the case, I have generally found the conduct of Piotrus to have been, if not comendable, then at least within reasonable bounds. As Barkeep in particular pointed out in the analysis, a good deal of evidence was presented to demonstrate that Piotrus had in fact learned and worked to improve his editing in recent years, and this FoF captures that. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
CaptainEek ⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
With more emphasis on "unhelpful"; I think this falls in line with the "battleground" issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
CaptainEek ⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
— Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

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:

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Icewhiz's harassment of VM has been severe. But that is not an excuse to bad behavior on VM's part. In many ways, I fear that the harassment of VM by Icewhiz has long masked the problems with VM himself. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
A fair acknowledgement of potential mitigating circumstances. Izno (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
VM has been subject to creepy and extensive harassment. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Harassment is mitigating and editors should be sensitive to it, but it does not absolve an editor from responsibility for their conduct. — Wug·a·po·des 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation for a white paper on research best practices

1) The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.

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

Support:

GeneralNotability (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
With or without an adjustment regarding PII. It's something we can also followup with Maggie on if/when this remedy passes. Izno (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I like this idea, and if nothing else comes out of the decision, I hope this does. I support with or without adjustment regarding PII. Worm(talk) 11:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
We're going to see more and more papers/reports such as this as the years go on, because Misplaced Pages is very much In The Real World. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I am sympathetic to Tyrpto's comment on the talk page about making sure this white paper goes into PII about editors. Fiarly flexible in how we acheive that but it's a major motivator for this remedy and I don't think it should be lost. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a 'copyedit' is fine to add it in, probably just in the first sentence add about Wikipedians and their personal information. Izno (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes that would do it. Ping GeneralNotability and Guerillero noting I've done that addition and they should feel free to revert me if they disagree with it. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Just as a procedural note, unless I state otherwise I am fine with any copyedits made to this motion. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing restriction

Reliable sourcing restriction (clarification)

2) Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:

All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.

Support:

It is high time to raise the bar on sourcing, given the extensive issues shown. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
First choice. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
We have attempted adding sourcing requirements in the past, and while it is a requirement that might need further refinement in the future, I do think it is a step in the right direction. Worm(talk) 11:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Perm Worm essentially. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:34, 12 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)

I'd like to hear comment from the parties and any others on this remedy. This will be the second time this remedy has been adjusted, and in some ways this version of the remedy returns us to the one that was originally in the original 2019 case. Izno (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

Second choice to the above. I like the idea of a threshold being set, but I am not sure whether it will become too convoluted or simply lead to more arguing over the matter. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

I don't like this idea of a threshold, as I don't believe that you can build such a hierarchy without the risk of outliers and therefore additional complexity. If we had some sort of community source reliability "ranking" system, where sources would be given a default rank which could be moved up or down by the community, then I could get behind a threshold system - but we don't, so I can't. Worm(talk) 11:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but one unlikely to work in practice. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

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)
~~Asking if a source actually contains the information it is supporting should be a no-brainer, as should be giving the answer. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)~~

Oppose:

I can't get behind this. I believe that misrepresenting sources in a foreign language should be a sanctionable offence, up to and including a ban based on severity of the misrepresentation. However, the fault lies with the individual, not the source. Implying that English sources are better is going to introduce an instant level of bias, will tilt articles in unforeseen ways. Worm(talk) 11:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I get this, but I don't think it's workable. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Striking my support for now, as WTT has given me some things to ponder. Additionally, in re-reading Remedy 2 it feels like we are just telling AE admins how to proceed in the discussions covered by said remedy. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

FR has been a net negative in the topic area --Guerillero 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Per my comments at FOF 10. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
again, I do not condone the term "net negative", but I do agree that a topic ban is appropriate. Worm(talk) 11:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

I would prefer an EE topic ban --Guerillero 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
This is an admittedly harsh sanction, but I found Wishes conduct during the case disruptive and "I-Didn't-Hear-That"-enough to topic ban. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
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)
--Guerillero 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems odd that we are implementing an interaction ban where the individual has a positive opinion about the others, but the disruption is evident. Worm(talk) 11:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Per Worm. I do hope this discourages the sort of kneejerk defenses we see when your friends are in some sort of "trouble". Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
At a minimum. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I would prefer an EE topic ban --Guerillero 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
At a minimum. Izno (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Support as is, and would support a wider topic banWorm(talk) 11:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't really see a way around this given the presented evidence unfortunately. Equal to my vote on 6.1. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Volunteer Marek topic banned (alt)

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Propose this given some discussion and the rationales of some Arbs above. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek banned

6.2) 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:

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

I'm not at the point that I believe a site ban is necessary, as I believe a topic ban is sufficient, although I would consider a broader one. I would also suggest that with the history of sanctions, it is not something we should be considering lifting lightly. Worm(talk) 11:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not convinced that Volunteer Marek is a net negative to Misplaced Pages as a whole. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

It has been suggested that rather than a site ban maybe there should be a 1RR (or even 0RR) restriction. When I wrote above that some arguments I will find hard to argue or disagree with I was thinking about the related arguments of "When an editor gets a certain number of distinct restrictions this suggests that they're not fit for the project" (with a civility restriction + RR + topic ban qualifing should we pass the latter two, leaving aside the ibans which don't resonate for me with this argument) and "If someone keeps getting serious sanctions after ArbCom cases that suggests a larger issue in and of itself with compatiability for project". Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Right now, the problem I have is that VM has merited multiple partial bans and restrictions, and to fix the issues identified in the FOFs, both those in the section about VM and those elsewhere in the FOF, would take reinstating some of the previous ones, adding to them with several of the proposed restrictions, and then some (e.g. a 0-revert restriction on all relevant pages forever , a comment restriction of some sort, a civility restriction, the currently proposed TBAN and IBANs, and possibly more). Indeed, at some point, it's enough to say "you are the problem and it's not getting better, so while we thank you for your positive contributions, good bye" (c.f. "Recidivism"). I think that's in Wugs' rationale below, but I had separately come to that conclusion with the array of restrictions to hand, and I think it will be a primary point in my consideration. Izno (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I am currently leaning towards opposing this, but I need to process the statements made (both by arbs and the community) in the last 12 hours before I can make a final decision. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

I find the IP allegation to be weakly proven. I think there's good counter evidence that it's not VM nor is there any evidence, beyond mere supposition, that it's a confederate. By definition a confiderate means that there would have been coordination with VM and whoever is behind that IP and this single edit in this single instance isn't enough to suggest there's a link between the IP and VM let alone that VM was in a confederacy of some kind with the person behind that IP. I am still considering a lot of this (to reveal some behind the scenes, while I knew Wugs was going to support this I didn't know why as we try to keep substantive conversations in public during drafting) but I wanted to note my reaction to that piece specifically because it feels like such a strong claim with such weak backing compared to the rest of what has been written. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism of the rationale. It smells of the kind of harassment that this area has had from multiple actors (Icewhiz isn't the only bad-faith editor) and for which we have an FOF regarding specifically VM. I also don't think the criticism is particularly relevant since the passage of ECR. If he had been socking logged in to support his edit warring, I very much believe it would have been caught by now. Izno (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

--Guerillero 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Too much conflict, and I'm pretty sure this goes back before 2019. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
--Guerillero 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:54, 12 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:

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)
Izno (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Worm(talk) 11:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I view remind, warn, admonish as something that goes from least severe to most severe when it comes to a sanction that doesn't have a restriction and this is very much in the remind realm for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:32, 12 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:

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)
Per Barkeep, above and in the comment, but also willing to be convinced otherwise. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the disruption in their interactions. Worm(talk) 11:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I am inclined to oppose also, but I will wait to see what supporters say. Izno (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to elaborate a bit, the reasoning behind this seems to be like the MVBW iBan proposal for "they get along too well". While I think this is a tool uninvolved administrators should consider employing at times, I think the evidence shows numerous times that Piotr and VM disagree. So the presence of VM, Piotr, and Foo in a hypothetical discussion doesn't tell you if all three would have different opinions, would all agree, or if it there would be a split, and if there's a split whether Foo would be in the majority or minority. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (I)

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

Support:

CaptainEek ⚓ 20:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Second choice to 11a. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Second choice to 11a. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I am proposing an alternative I prefer as it employs our standard machinery for WP:CTOP in some degree. It requires a different level of consensus needed for a referral as a result and removes some text about a private consideration, but I think that is a minor price to pay to use and be able to refer to our standard system (regarding the privacy consideration, we can already do that while considering at ARCA regardless). Izno (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I have separately retained the extension to EE, but I am wondering if that's a good idea at this time (I recognize the positive of it, but I think given the current large activity in the area due to the Ukrainian conflict I am not sure I want to open that floodgate without some control on what it takes for arbitrary users to file at ARCA instead of at AE.) Izno (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, this specific proposal should probably make clear what the verbiage in that earlier motion should now appear as, as I have done below. Kind of winging it there, so if we need to work something out we can. While attempting to do so, I found that I think we will need to modify Misplaced Pages:ARBEE#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022) directly to keep the paperwork clean for administrators also? (Or do we have a contentious topics page for EE lying around?) Izno (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Support:

Izno (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
First choice to 11. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
First choice to 11. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I would support 11 with some more links added, but I think this version does everything nicely. Worm(talk) 11:59, 12 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:

CaptainEek ⚓ 20:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
--Guerillero 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
GeneralNotability (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Not sure how much benefit this is, but I don't see the harm. Worm(talk) 11:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
For whatever good this does. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:52, 12 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)

I'm not totally sold on a non-standard enforcement routine here with the standard ARCA referral mechanism as well as opening requests directly with us. Izno (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to hear some feedback from the community on this conceptually, especially admin who work AE. I am included to support it along the lines of the recidivism principle, but I actually think the issue here might be the fact that it's limited to the scope of this case and doesn't include EE. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Vote

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

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

Support

Oppose

Comments: I am not sure where else to put this comment that I very much want editors with-in this topic area, and Eastern Europe, to take note of so I'm putting it here. There has been a lot of casual accusations of improper coordination and colloboration thrown about with-in this topic area. With the two biggest being along the lines of "Clearly long-time editor Foo's comments were written by Icewhiz." and "Here Foo and Bar go with tag-teaming, showing that there is some new Eastern European Mailing List." It was important to me to let people put forward the strongest arugments they could around these accusations during this case and ultimately I found all of them unconvincing. Absent new compelling evidence of inappropriate collaboration of this kind, I will find such accusations, whether thrown around casually or with great effort (and we had evidence of both), to themselves be disruptive and inappropriate. I will find such conduct worth a sanction (perhaps only a formal warning, but a sanction) even if done in apparently good faith. These kinds of comments are a part of what makes this an unpleasant topic area and I hope they'll stop. Note: I did not say people can't accuse an editor of being a sock, because with-out question this topic area has those. If an editor wants to make a socking accusation they can go to SPI and file a report. This is about creating guilt by association type accusations around people who are clearly not socks. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)