This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Opabinia regalis (talk | contribs) at 08:20, 8 September 2019 (→Proposed remedies: v). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

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 motions

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

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

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

Discretionary sanctions

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Interaction ban

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

Enacted --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 17:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Support:

1. Proposed. This would be a temporary measure and does not reflect an assessment of the entire position of either party. AGK ■ 21:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Katie 23:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Worm(talk) 22:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes is prohibited.

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Verifiability

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Preexisting disputes

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Non-English language sources

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Talk pages

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editing environment in the topic area

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

History at dispute-resolution venues

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

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

Support:

1. This is... kind of impressive, really. I'm surprised this didn't turn into a case sooner. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Incivility and inflammatory rhetoric

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

• Volunteer Marek engaged in name-calling (), made unhelpfully sarcastic talk-page comments (, , ), and personalized disputes (, )
• Icewhiz made unnecessarily inflammatory comments (), made negative insinuations about Poland (), and made inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments (, )

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Assuming bad faith

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

• Icewhiz interpreted an apparent error by Poeticbent as a deliberate hoax (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent:_anti-Jewish_hoaxes), interpreted editing of old text attributable to a long-blocked sock as "proxying" despite lack of evidence of communication with the sockmaster ()
• Volunteer Marek has accused Icewhiz of making things up on numerous occasions: you made that up, This was Icewhiz making stuff up, please. stop. making. stuff. up., Please stop making shit up.

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Battleground behavior

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

Support:

1. The incessant battlegrounding is one of the most distinctive characteristics of this dispute. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Hounding

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

Support:

1. I realize there's inevitable overlap within a topic area like this, but it really does seem like there was an excessive amount of following going on here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Accusations of sockpuppetry and proxying

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Insinuations of Holocaust denial

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

BLP violations

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

• Icewhiz has used inappropriate sources in BLPs (), made negative edits to BLPs (), and made arguably BLP-violating edits on talk pages by posting negative claims or speculations about living scholars (, )

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sourcing disputes

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Challenges in evaluating evidence

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Specific-article sourcing restrictions

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Events since the close of the workshop

14) Since the close of the workshop:

• An interaction ban between Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek was enacted on August 19.
• Icewhiz was blocked for 72 hours on Sept 1.

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

Poeticbent removed as a party

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Icewhiz topic-banned

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Still mulling the topic bans (commenting on the first one, but referring to both). One of the challenges in this case, on reviewing the evidence, is that the problems aren't limited to the two editors listed as parties, though they are two of the most prolific, so it's not immediately clear that removing either or both from the topic area will solve some of the underlying problems (particularly around source reliability). Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek topic-banned

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Article sourcing expectations

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Acknowledgment of delay

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

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

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

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

These notes were last updated by SQL 15:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC) by Opabinia regalis.

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

Notes

Vote

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

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

Support

Oppose

Comments