Case clerks: SQL ( Talk) & Bradv ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Opabinia regalis ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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 6 active arbitrators. 4 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 4 |
1–2 | 3 |
3–4 | 2 |
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. |
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 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.
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.
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.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia 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.
2) On Wikipedia, the reliability and accuracy of content is paramount. Wikipedia: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.
3) Issues that are contentious in real life are likely to be so on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.
4) All Wikipedia 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.
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 for a translation of the source 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.
6) The purpose of a Wikipedia 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.
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.
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.
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:
Link | Filer | Subject | Date | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#Icewhiz | GizzyCatBella | Icewhiz | 9 May 2018 | Reminder to GizzyCatBella; referred to WP:RSN |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#GizzyCatBella | Icewhiz | GizzyCatBella | 9 May 2018 | Withdrawn per advice of responding admins |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive233#Icewhiz | Poeticbent | Icewhiz | 23 May 2018 | Poeticbent topic-banned for six months |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive236#GizzyCatBella | Icewhiz | GizzyCatBella | 24 June 2018 | GizzyCatBella topic-banned |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive237#Icewhiz | MyMoloboaccount | Icewhiz | 3 July 2018 | No action |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive238#Volunteer_Marek | Icewhiz | Volunteer Marek | 5 July 2018 | Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz both topic-banned for three months |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248#Tatzref | Icewhiz | Tatzref | 25 February 2019 | No action against Tatzref; Volunteer Marek topic-banned for six months; François Robere blocked for a week |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Volunteer_Marek | Volunteer Marek | N/A | 3 March 2019 | Topic ban successfully appealed |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#Volunteer_Marek | Icewhiz | Volunteer Marek | 30 May 2019 | Referred to arbcom |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#François_Robere | Volunteer Marek | François Robere | 9 June 2019 | No action |
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).
4) A background of abrasive and uncivil commentary features in many conversations related to this dispute, including conversations in dispute-resolution venues:
5) Both parties regularly assume the worst of others' editing, including interpreting errors, misunderstandings, and disagreements about sources as hoaxing and lying.
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.
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).
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 Wikipedia in May 2018. No evidence has been supplied that he has engaged in sockpuppetry or proxying since his departure.
9) Icewhiz inappropriately and falsely linked Volunteer Marek to Holocaust denial ( [11])
10) Significant aspects of this dispute center on sourcing in BLPs and on commentary about BLP subjects, generally scholars of the topic at issue.
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.
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.
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 been
positively received.
14) Since the close of the workshop:
1) Poeticbent is removed as a party to this case.
2) Icewhiz ( talk · contribs) and Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
3a) Icewhiz ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland, for one year.
3b) Icewhiz ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland. This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed.
4a) Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland, for one year.
4b) Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland. This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed.
5) The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted 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, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. 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.
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.
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.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
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 Query me! 18:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 18:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC) by Cthomas3.
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.
Case clerks: SQL ( Talk) & Bradv ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Opabinia regalis ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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 6 active arbitrators. 4 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 4 |
1–2 | 3 |
3–4 | 2 |
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. |
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 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.
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.
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.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia 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.
2) On Wikipedia, the reliability and accuracy of content is paramount. Wikipedia: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.
3) Issues that are contentious in real life are likely to be so on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.
4) All Wikipedia 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.
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 for a translation of the source 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.
6) The purpose of a Wikipedia 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.
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.
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.
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:
Link | Filer | Subject | Date | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#Icewhiz | GizzyCatBella | Icewhiz | 9 May 2018 | Reminder to GizzyCatBella; referred to WP:RSN |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#GizzyCatBella | Icewhiz | GizzyCatBella | 9 May 2018 | Withdrawn per advice of responding admins |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive233#Icewhiz | Poeticbent | Icewhiz | 23 May 2018 | Poeticbent topic-banned for six months |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive236#GizzyCatBella | Icewhiz | GizzyCatBella | 24 June 2018 | GizzyCatBella topic-banned |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive237#Icewhiz | MyMoloboaccount | Icewhiz | 3 July 2018 | No action |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive238#Volunteer_Marek | Icewhiz | Volunteer Marek | 5 July 2018 | Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz both topic-banned for three months |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248#Tatzref | Icewhiz | Tatzref | 25 February 2019 | No action against Tatzref; Volunteer Marek topic-banned for six months; François Robere blocked for a week |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Volunteer_Marek | Volunteer Marek | N/A | 3 March 2019 | Topic ban successfully appealed |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#Volunteer_Marek | Icewhiz | Volunteer Marek | 30 May 2019 | Referred to arbcom |
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#François_Robere | Volunteer Marek | François Robere | 9 June 2019 | No action |
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).
4) A background of abrasive and uncivil commentary features in many conversations related to this dispute, including conversations in dispute-resolution venues:
5) Both parties regularly assume the worst of others' editing, including interpreting errors, misunderstandings, and disagreements about sources as hoaxing and lying.
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.
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).
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 Wikipedia in May 2018. No evidence has been supplied that he has engaged in sockpuppetry or proxying since his departure.
9) Icewhiz inappropriately and falsely linked Volunteer Marek to Holocaust denial ( [11])
10) Significant aspects of this dispute center on sourcing in BLPs and on commentary about BLP subjects, generally scholars of the topic at issue.
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.
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.
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 been
positively received.
14) Since the close of the workshop:
1) Poeticbent is removed as a party to this case.
2) Icewhiz ( talk · contribs) and Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
3a) Icewhiz ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland, for one year.
3b) Icewhiz ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland. This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed.
4a) Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland, for one year.
4b) Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland. This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed.
5) The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted 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, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. 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.
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.
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.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
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 Query me! 18:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 18:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC) by Cthomas3.
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.