Case clerks: SQL ( Talk) & Bradv ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Opabinia regalis ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to suggest renaming this case to more accurate and neutral "Polish-Jewish history", as the current name is both incorrect and potentially biased. The current name is incorrect because it is more then just about antisemitism; it is also related to topics like anti-Polish sentiment (see ex. the early evidence/argument presented by User:My very best wishes here) and a similar section by User:MyMoloboaccount. The current name is potentially biased, as it gives undue weight to only one of the aspects of the case, and creates the impression that it is a conflict between anti-antisemitic or pro-antisemitic editors, or otherwise may unconsciously prejudice the parties, neutral editors and arbitrators themselves for or towards the parties. In other words, the current name seems to frame to case as potentially accusing some editors of antisemitism or of supporting antisemitic attitudes/sources, creating a presumption of guilt, from the very onset suggesting that some parties may be 'more correct' or siding with them is expected, and criticizing them would be incorrect, when this is just one of several dimensions of the case. I therefore urge the ArbCom to rename this case to a more neutral title which will both represent the scope of the dispute better, and avoid prejudicing anyone for or against the parties. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Ping Volunteer Marek and K.e.coffman who commented on this very issue at evidence talk. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
"long anti-Semitic tradition of blaming Esterka". [1] [10] - not "my COATRACKING" - but in this case Haaretz's description (which makes a point academic sources make as well). [11] - stereotyping? Made by a literature researcher, based in Poland I might add, in the context of these figurines that are based on an antisemitic motif. Academic sources abound in the topic area in general, e.g. Modras, Ronald. The Catholic church and antisemitism: Poland, 1933-1939. Vol. 1. Psychology Press, 2000. or Blatman, Daniel. "Polish antisemitism and ‘Judeo‐communism’: Historiography and memory." East European Jewish Affairs 27.1 (1997): 23-43.. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
And I agree with Piotrus and k.e.coffman. Unless the ArbCom has already made up its mind as to the outcome without actually looking at the evidence, then Icewhiz's egregious behavior and battleground attitude, not to mention continual violations of BLP, is as much of an issue as anything else. Even "Polish-Jewish" relations is not entirely accurate as some of his edits concern Poles and Germans (for example whitewashing and minimizing Nazi crimes against Poles) and Poles and Soviets (for example whitewashing and minimizing Stalinist crimes against Poles). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Easiest way to deal with this would be just to name the case "Eastern Europe 3" or something. Also, please recall that ArbCom has had to rename past cases in the past precisely because of unfortunate choices of original names. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
References
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was thinking mainly about the ease of application of any new restrictions that may come out of this case. For example, an admin saying "You are topic banned from Antisemitism in Poland" sounds ambiguous; compare with: "You are topic banned from Jewish-Polish history". The latter is more straightforward, IMO. Some articles that do not mention anti-semitism, but have experienced similar disputes, are Casimir III the Great and Esterka, his mythical Jewish mistress; Barbara Engelking, Polish scholar of the Holocaust. Articles in the Category:Jewish ghettos in Nazi-occupied Poland, although not necessarily related to "antisemitism in Poland", have seen extensive use of problematic sources and are part of the disputed area. A potentially adjusted name could also be a benefit in the BLP area. Those writing on Polish-Jewish history would be covered under the case in question, without admins having to figure out how antisemitism comes into this. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just wanted the Committee to be made aware that this was happening. El_C 21:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
(If this is helpful, please consider this a request to add the following as late evidence.) What happened between Icewhiz (IW) and Volunteer Marek (VM) at the article in
the ANEW report above (
Islamophobia in Poland) has happened elsewhere. IW created
Islamophobia in Poland on Aug 3. On Aug 5–6, VM removed large chunks of the article
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19], added tags with the edit summaries like Who is this? Like three people and a dog?
[20] and given that the same editor inserted false information (with a source!) into the article, we need to verify this info
[21], and posted a 3RR warning on IW's talk page
[22].
Talk:Islamophobia in Poland speaks for itself.
That article may not be in the scope of this case, but the same thing happened at
Rafał Pankowski, an article about a Polish sociologist and political scientist who received an
Anti-Defamation League human rights award honoring people who fight antisemitism in Europe. IW created it on May 19. Later that day, VM made a series of removals with edit summaries like BLP UNDUE, just silly
[23] and da f is this?
[24]. In 24hrs, VM made
one,
two,
three deletions. On the second day of the article's existence, Icewhiz started the first talk page thread:
Talk:Rafał Pankowski#Recent edits. VM's first reply: ... Come on, who you're trying to kid? ...
[25]. It goes on from there. By the fourth day, an admin applied 1RR DS to the article
[26].
Same at
Jew with a coin, an article IW created on May 20. The same day, VM deleted content with edit summaries like nonsense
[27], bad grammar
[28], most likely a self promo
[29], rmv POV, rmv gratuitous stereotyping and ethnic generalizations
[30], and POV COATRACK
[31]. IW started the first talk page thread at
Talk:Jew with a coin/Archive 1#Recent edits. It goes from there, and the talk page speaks for itself.
IW posted a thread at VM's talk page called "Hounding" on April 23, asking him to stop doing this sort of thing. [32]
I looked at VM's latest article creations ( Iwaniec Uprising, Kacper Miłaszewski, Aleksander Smolar, 2018–19 education workers' strikes in the United States, and Jafta Masemola) to see if it went both ways. IW only edited one of them, Iwaniec Uprising, a year ago: [33] [34]. – Leviv ich 02:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Since we seem to be back to adding "evidence" (why are you here Levivich?) then let's add the following:
In this edit Icewhiz added (copied) text which was clearly false and not supported by the source. The text, which is about a marginal non-notable "politician" from a fringe party submitting a request to the Ministry of Justice to delegalize Muslim faith organizations, is:
In October of that year, his (Banasiak's) request was denied, however, after the "positive and supportive" intervention of the
Ministry of Justice, the case was to be reopened and reassessed
There is absolutely NOTHING to support that in the source. Here is what the source actually says (my translation, 10th paragraph if you want to confirm with Google translate):
"The ministry confirmed that its workers met with Banasiak. Its press bureau however presents the course of the meeting differently (than Banasiak). It stated: "the claim that the ministry's experts declared their willingness to help in efforts to delegalize Muslim faith organizations is false. During the meeting the experts only affirmed that, according with procedures they will analyze the documents submitted by Pawel Banasiak. After analyzing these documents, the Ministry of Justice did not find any reason to undertake any actions (to support Banasiak)". The ministry's press bureau added that "the freedom of religion is guaranteed by the (Polish) constitution". [1]
In other words, the source says THE OPPOSITE of what Icewhiz inserted into the article.
There's further falsification in the same edit. The inserted text states:
Banasiak's actions, as well as the Ministry of Justice's "supportive decision", were both concerning to the Polish Tatars, as well as
Rafał Pankowski
The source is an article from Vice [35]. This one's in English so it's even easier to verify that it says nothing like it. There is ABSOLUTELY no mention of "Polish Tatars" in the article. There is NOTHING in it about Ministry of Justice, much less anything about its "supportive decision".
Note that in both cases quotation marks are used which falsely indicates that these are direct quotes from the sources. They're not. They're falsifications of the source ( WP:HOAX anyone?).
This is just false false false false. There really is no other way for me to express that. It's false. That's it. False. And somebody tacked a source at the end to fake-source it.
Icewhiz inserted this info into the article. When asked WHY he added that in, he has refused to answer.
There's only two possibilities here:
Possibility 1 - Icewhiz verified the sources, saw that the info was NOT in them, but decided to include the false text into the article anyway because it fit his POV. This would indeed constitute another WP:HOAX pushed by Icewhiz. Possibility 2 - Icewhiz failed to verify the source and just copied-pasted it without checking because it neatly fit into his POV.
Now, assuming good faith, I expect that the true explanation is Possibility 2. Icewhiz just copy-pasted text which fit his POV and didn't check whether the source actually supported it. Normally this would be cause for a short block or topic ban, but not an indef ban the way that pushing HOAXes/Possibility 1 would be. However, given that Icewhiz has (falsely) accused me of "not verifying" sources [36] and screamed bloody murder about it, this once again illustrates the double standards that Icewhiz edits under. Put it simply, he's regularly guilty of what he falsely accuses others of. Any sanctions on him should take this cynical approach into account.
As to Leviv's accusations, I've already addressed this accusation in my evidence. I've been editing this topic area since 2005. Icewhiz has followed me to far more article than vice-versa. In fact, Icewhiz has clearly looked through my contributions from 8-10 years ago and went back to restart edit wars and disputes. And what exactly is suppose to be wrong with the edit summary "bad grammar" or "BLP UNDUE, just silly" or any of the other ones for that matter?
And yes it's true that Icewhiz created this article. AFTER the proposal for such an article came up at Talk:Racism in Poland [37] where I was involved!!! So why WOULDN'T I be interested in this article? I was part of the conversation that led to its creation ffs! This is just insanely silly.
But let's put that aside. If you see somebody putting blatantly false information into an article, and pretending that sources support it when they don't, what are you suppose to do? Leave it in? Say nothing? No. You remove it. That's not "hounding". That's actually improving the encyclopedia.
Hey User:Levivich, what's worse, inserting false info into Wikipedia articles and pretending to source it, or pointing out that someone has done that? I mean, if the second one is worse - which it appears from your comment you believe - then OH MY GOD should Icewhiz be sanctioned for "hounding" Poeticbent and accusing him of the very thing! Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
(also, whenever somebody claims stuff like "XYZ speaks for itself" that's really a way of saying "I got nothing, but I'm gonna pretend there's something really bad going on". It's a rhetorical trick which hopes that readers will be too lazy to actually click and check for themselves) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In regards to Iwaniec Uprising (over a year ago) - I got to it via NPP (back then - I was more active on NPP) - ticked it as approved, added standard flags given article state, made a very minor improvements, and then moved on. VM indeed shows up on most articles and major edits I do to existing articles when they are related to certain topics. A very limited set of examples (diff count limits - containing only articles that VM never edited before) is in my Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek's harrassment of Icewhiz) , but it is much wider - as Levivich points out. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
is actually well supported by the cited newspaper pieceComplete and utter horseshit. No, it is not. Stop lying. Because that's EXACTLY what you're doing here. There's not a damn thing in there about:
Just wanted the Committee to be made aware that Volunteer Marek has violated 1RR on History of the Jews in Poland. Some background is available here and here. I felt hesitant to block since my offer to him to self-revert was mistakenly issued after that was no longer possible, otherwise I would have blocked for 24 hours — being careless is not a reason I'd be inclined to readily accept for this dispute. And since I've already been lenient once before for his technical 3RR violation noted in the sections above, I'm feeling more than a little uneasy about this. Anyway, my hope is that the Arbitration case will be closed soon, so that those of us dealing with the dispute on the article space would have further guidance in which to operate. El_C 21:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
While evidence and the workshop has closed, I'd like to note that WP:HOUNDing has continued afterwards (as pointed out by Levivich above). This has included:
Icewhiz ( talk) 07:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unfortunately the case didn't manage to stop others from making continued edits that seem to serve no other purpose but to incite and enflame interaction with others
For example, Icewihiz creates an article [50] loaded with extreme statements and cherrypicked statements presenting in the worst way imaginable Poland and Poles
However looking at the pattern in previous articles and edits that were done in similar, I am not surprised by this. The article is written in a way that is bound to provoke less reserved users into heated debates and disputes, and at this point seems to have been purposefully loaded with as many controversial statement as possible.The extreme statements pushed in the edits and articles are presented in a way that presents Holocaust as some kind of German-Polish endeavour, information about Nazi atrocities against Poles is removed, as is about Nazi occupation of Poland, and Poles are presented as having antisemitism as their cultural identity.If this was not Icewhiz's intention, then unfortunately,it hard not to perceive these edits as such.
As Joanna Michlic(an author Icewhiz quoted several times when she was extremely critical of some Polish historians) writes in her book Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present: "This book also opposes an attitude that can be found in popular collective Jewish memory that that presents Polish anti-Semitism as “unique” or “uniquely extreme,” as equal to or “even more severe” than Nazi anti-Semitism, with its full-scale genocidal solution to the "Jewish question". Editors on Wikipedia should be careful not to repeat such stereotyping(even unwillingly).
Unfortunately the continued edits about Poland and Polish society that constantly present the most extreme claims and statements such as describing (in context of World War 2 Nazi racist atrocities) the Holocaust as mainly German(excluding Polish role) [51], trying to describe 13th century Poland as state motivated by racism [52], n aming genocide of Poles "limited action" by Germans, and writing that when describing Poland in WW and writing about Polish victims of Nazi Germany "Poles should appear last" [53], or comparing Polish resistance against Nazis to SS and Wehrmacht [54] seem to indicate a troubling lack of neutrality on the subject and unwillingness to pursue in dialog and edits in constructive, noninflammatory manner.
We of course all have our biases, but editors should be able to identify extreme positions, and the above sadly look ones easy to spot.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Additional
WP:HOUNDING following closure of evidence and workshop:
I will note that VM's edits during this case - to the newly created LGBT-free zone and Islamophobia in Poland exhibit issues with mainstream sources (NEWSORG for the former (new topic), and academic sources for the latter) covering the brand (and consequences thereof) of Catholic-nationalism advocated by the PiS party in Poland - and not just issues with antisemitism specifically. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
first-ever LGBT+ rights march, headlined
Polish cities and provinces declare ‘LGBT-free zones’ as government ramps up ‘hate speech’, which says:
Nearby, the Nazis exterminated Jews and other minorities – including gay people – during World War II. But the killing did not stop with the end of the war. Dozens of Jews were murdered in Kielce in a pogrom on 4 July 1946. The killings convinced many of Poland’s remaining Jews who had survived the Nazi Holocaust that there was no future for them in the country.You deleted this sentence with the edit summary " blatant coatracking". How is this sentence coatracking? Icewhiz reverted your deletion, pointing out it's in the source, and then you tried turning the whole article into a redirect with the edit summary " not notable ...", which has now been reverted (thankfully). This is all within 24 hours of the article's creation. This is the umpteenth article of Icewhiz's where the first thread on the talk page is Icewhiz trying to start a discussion about one of your edits: Talk:LGBT-free zone#Recent edits. You are, in fact, hounding Icewhiz, on a daily basis, and should stop. – Leviv ich 06:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Aside from being written in a tendentious over-the-top POV manner ...May I suggest for next time the following format:
I disagree with [text] because [reason].– Leviv ich 06:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
"creating WP:POINTy content and comments which are obviously meant to provoke others"- I don't think LGBT rights in Poland is a particularly provocative topic. If we ignore right-wing press inside of Poland, mainstream WP:NEWSORGs (BBC, WaPo, NYT, Telegraph, etc. as well as liberal press in Poland - e.g. Gazeta Wyborcza) - are really all covering the issue in the same manner. However, VM's comments that this content is somehow meant to "provoke" has resonated with a quote I just saw in the Financial Times as I'm trying to expand the article:
Poland’s ruling party fuels anti-LGBT sentiment ahead of elections, FT, 11 August 2019. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)“In the past [LGBT people] lived in silence. What is happening now is a provocation, it’s not necessary,” said Jarek, an engineer from Plock, as he watched the marchers gather. “Poles don’t want this. We’re a Catholic country. What is this? . . . They are trying to provoke us.”
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Icewhiz started the article LGBT-free zone, about some municipalities in Poland doing stupid shitty things. Essentially some local politicians making anti-LGBT declarations. There is some good content in the article but overall it's not notable. Stupid shitty politicians say stupid shitty things all the time. In US, we have had a series of states pass insane anti-abortion laws. Wikipedia doesn't even have articles about them. Because on their own they're not notable (as long as they don't go to SCOTUS). Same thing here. But hey, this is Icewhiz chance to write another "hey look at how bad the Poles are!!!" articles that he's been mass producing lately, while the ArbCom case stalled.
So I raise the notability objection and I propose to merge the content (which, like I said, some is good) to LGBT rights in Poland. Icewhiz removes the tag within minutes, literally while I was getting a drink from the kitchen, [75] and THEN has the audacity to lecture me on the talk page [76] about "not starting proper discussion". Obviously if he hadn't immediately started edit warring to remove the tag I would have started such a discussion.
If this isn't a textbook example of disingenous, bad faithed, WP:GAMEing, I don't know what is.
But hey, it's Icewhiz, so it actually gets worse.
Now that he knows I think this article is non-notable, he starts spamming it into as many articles as he can think of: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. Now, on some of these, like Homophobia, or maybe even Bialystok *some* of this content belongs in there. But the rest... it's gratuitous.
"Oh, you don't think my article is notable? Well, I'm gonna stuff the same thing into as many places as I can, just to piss you off!" You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that he is not being deliberately provocative.
But hey, it's Icewhiz, so it actually gets worse.
Icewhiz, even tried to stuff this into ... the article
No-go zone
[84]. What is the article on the
No-go zone about? It's about, quote: A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups.
What. The. Hey. Does. This. Have. To. Do. With some stupid politicians in Poland being assholes about LGBT rights?
That clearly shows that these edits were made solely with the purpose of provocation, and were not indented seriously. Otherwise, he wouldn't have done something as ridiculous as adding this content to the No-go zone article.
This is of course par-for-the-course for Icewhiz. Over the past few weeks he's gone on a tear and most of his edits are of the similar problematic and disruptive nature. The topic ban is three years over due. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
"Now that he knows I think this article is non-notable, he starts spamming it into as many articles as he can think of"VM lists (first three diffs): 14:45, 14 August, 14:44, 14 August, 14:44, 14 August 2019 (particular regions declaring themselves "LGBT-free zones") - which pre-date VM's involvement in the article.
A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area, barricaded off
- This isn't it.
Areas undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control
- This, isn't it.
Areas that have a reputation
for violence
and crime
- This isn't it.
Areas inhabited by a parallel society
- This? Isn't it.
A no-go area, where authorities have lost control
- This isn't it.
Areas where fishing
and overfishing
- Is that the one?
You are being patently and transparently absurd.— Volunteer Marek, August 15th 2019
(Transcribed by François Robere ( talk))
@
AGK and
SQL: The closing comment The evidence and workshop phases are over. Please stop trying to re-litigate this case
is unhelpful. The issues posted to this talk page didn't exist when the evidence and workshop phases were open–these are new instances of disruption. Nobody is "re-litigating" anything; editors are asking for help. Some of these issues have been brought to you by an admin, from a noticeboard, who is understandably reluctant to unilaterally use tools when a case is pending before Arbcom. Instead of brushing off by hatting sections–which I basically take as a message to shut up and wait patiently–perhaps Arbcom could do something to help with the ongoing disruption while we wait for a proposed decision? For example, you could issue some kind of temporary order, or maybe just a statement reassuring admin that they can use their tools as normal while the case is pending and don't have to worry about stepping on toes. Either way, there's ongoing disruption, and this is the port of last call. So far, it seems Arbcom is just ignoring this. Everybody understands waiting for a proposed decision, but in the meantime: a little help, please? –
Leviv
ich 03:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
In "Article sourcing expectations" the text states " to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45)". Errr, shouldn't this be 1939-45, not 1933-45? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Volunteer Marek at 20:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Per the recent comments on my talk page by User:TonyBallioni [86], User:Piotrus [87] and User:Worm That Turned [88], I am submitting this request to amend the Proposed Remedy 3.3.2 [89] of this case to read:
Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on Volunteer Marek anywhere on Wikipedia.
This effectively converts the two sided IBAN into a one sided one.
As User:Worm That Turned points out, with Icewhiz indefinitely banned from Wikipedia the grounds for a two way IBAN are no longer valid and its original rationale is no longer applicable. Related to Tony Ballioni's point, there occasionally arise discussion/interactions on Wikipedia where I (Volunteer Marek) am brought up or discussed in some connection to Icewhiz by other editors (some of them apparently brand new accounts) and where, because of the IBAN, I am unable to comment, reply or defend myself (this happened for example on User:Jimbo Wales's talk page). This is particularly egregious since Icewhiz was indefinitely banned for extremely nasty off-wiki harassment of myself (as well as other editors).
Likewise, since the end of the case, and Icewhiz's indef ban, the topic area has seen a proliferation of new accounts and sock puppets (although not all of them are Icewhiz). Some of these appear to be engaged in baiting behavior, for example by restoring Icewhiz's old edits, which raises the possibility of an inadvertent IBAN violation. In other cases, these sock puppets/new accounts have made edits which target me personally but because of the IBAN I am unable to bring up the possibility that they are connected to Icewhiz on Wiki (some of the diffs from these accounts have been oversighted due to their extremely nasty nature).
I want to state that if this amendment carries, I have no intention of "seeking out" Icewhiz, or gravedancing, or "interacting" with his old edits or initiating discussions about him. For the most part I will be all too happy to continue to ignore his existence. However, as stated above, there is no longer a need for this restriction and occasionally (like with SPIs) a situation may arise where I should be able to comment.
I'm not comfortable with this being so broad. VM ought to be able to comment in some cases, but simply allowing them to comment anywhere for any reason doesn't sound reasonable. Volunteer Marek says there occasionally arise discussion/interactions on Wikipedia where I (Volunteer Marek) am brought up or discussed in some connection to Icewhiz by other editors (some of them apparently brand new accounts) and where, because of the IBAN, I am unable to comment, reply or defend myself; why can't we amend to say that on such occasions, VM may comment. --valereee ( talk) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Remedy 2 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned") is renamed Icewhiz banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek and amended to read:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by My very best wishes at 22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
According to the Article sourcing expectation remedy [90], "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."
The question. Does that sourcing restriction covers only content on the "Polish history during World War II (1933-45)" or it covers any other content that appear on the same page where anything related to the Polish history during World War II was mentioned? For example, there is a page Gas chamber. It includes a section about Nazi Germany that seems to be related to the Polish history during World War II [91]. However, it also includes sections about other countries, such as North Korea [92], USA and Lithuania [93]. Would these sections also be covered by such sourcing restriction? Meaning, should the section about North Korea be removed?
In other words, can content completely unrelated to Poland be removed based on this sourcing restriction, as in this edit (note edit summary)? Note that the page in question is not about Poland, but about Gas chamber. It only includes some content related to Poland.
Why. I am asking because the subjects related to other countries often have only a limited coverage in RS and were not subjects of significant scholarly studies. A lot of subjects are simply not science.
I would also suggest an amendment. I think this sourcing restriction for Poland should be removed for the following reasons:
Responses |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Paul Siebert Paul wants to make this removal. In this edit Paul removes everything referenced to works by historian Nikita Petrov (a publication in Novaya Gazeta), to Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to historian Lydia Golovkova, to a book by Mikhail Schreider who was an important witness to the crimes by the Soviet NKVD, to a book by Petro Grigorenko who was one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement, and to publications in Kommersant which is arguably an RS. These so called "non-scholarly sources" tell essentially the same as "scholarly sources" (ones that remain on the page after his edit), however they provide some additional important details and corroborate the entire story. @JzG Who thinks it would be a bad thing if this were applied over more articles or sections? That would be any reasonable person, because we have WP:NEWSORG as a part of WP:RS for a very good reason. And that depends on which articles and sections. If subject X has been covered in a huge number of sources, including academic ones (or this is a purely scientific subject, rather than magic), then such restriction might work OK, even though excluding journalistic sources could violate the balance and work against WP:NPOV. However, consider one of sub-subjects related to Human rights in North Korea, let's say Kang Chol-hwan or Lee Soon-ok (I would like to stick to the same example). There are no sources about them beyond publications in good journalistic sources like BBC and a couple of human rights reports. Personally, I prefer good journalistic sources. Or consider a notable movie covered only in multiple journalistic sources and Rotten tomatoes. @Assayer. Discussing "whether a particular source was reliable, whether a particular author was qualified, and whether a source is being misunderstood or misrepresented" is normal process. RSN did not "fail to settle these questions". It worked just fine, as it should, and provided some advice from the participants and uninivoled contributors. |
@Worm TT. Enforcing WP:RS would be great, but you want it in WP:AE setting to sanction people. Therefore, you need to establish very clear rules which would be obvious for everyone. This is nearly impossible. Even something as simple as 1RR/3RR causes a lot of confusion. A more complex "consensus required" remedy caused more harm than good in AP area. But this is even a more complex restriction. A lot of sources are not inherently reliable or unreliable. Their usage should be discussed on a case to case basis and be decided per WP:Consensus. In other words, to impose such restriction you should answer the following questions:
The bottom line (in my opinion). Arbcom and admins should not change the "five pillars". That restriction changes rather than just enforces WP:RS policy (and adversely affects the WP:NPOV by default). My very best wishes ( talk) 14:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
However, if you absolutely want to keep some restriction, I think Nick-D get it almost right (I omit only his first phrase as too ambiguous):
"Preference should be given to peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books. Other reliable sources may be used to augment scholarly works or where such works are not available."
It seems the request was inspired mostly by this.
Briefly, My Very Best Wishes' edits of the Gas van article are heavily dependent on questionable primary sources (an RSN discussion of one of key sources used by MVBW can be found here). The "Soviet Gas Van" topic is based literally on few sentences taken from one tabloid article, which were reproduced by several secondary sources, and handful of testimonies, part of them state that "Soviet gas van" was used to incapacitate victims before execution, not to kill them, and some of them say that NKVD documents the whole story is based upon cannot be trusted. For comparison, this article about Holocaust in Yugoslavia performs detailed analysis of real and perceived cases of gas van usage in Holocaust, and concludes that some witness testimonies should be treated with great cautions, and usage of gas vans to kill non-Jews is, most likely, a post-WWII myth. As compared with that article, the sources telling about Soviet gas van look like a school student essay.
A comparison of sources that tell about Nazi and Soviet gas vans demonstrates that the level of fact checking and accuracy are incomparable. In my opinion, combining poor sources telling about Soviet gas van and good sources telling about Nazi gas van is tantamount to combining articles from
Physical Review Letters and popular schientific journal for kids in the article about
Uncertainty principle: the level of sources should be more or less uniform in articles, otherwise we just discredit Wikipedia.
Second, I found the MVBW's rationale (
the subjects related to other countries often have only a limited coverage in RS and were not subjects of significant scholarly studies
) very odd, because he is literally advocating inclusion of questionable sources to support some exceptional claim (the claim that gas vans were invented and used in the USSR is exceptional) because this claim is
not covered by multiple mainstream sources. In other words, the argument against inclusion of this material is used to support inclusion of poor sources.
Third, during the discussion of the Collaboration in Poland Arbitration Case I already proposed (01:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)) sourcing restriction as an almost universal solution for conflicts in EE area. It already has had positive effect in Holocaust in Poland area, and I am 100% sure expansion of sourcing expectaions on whole EE area will quench lion's share of conflicts. At least, the long lasting conflict around the Gas van story will immediately stop is this criteria will be applied to that article. Importantly, in contrast to various topic bans or 1RRs, which are totally palliative measures, more stringent sourcing criteria really improve quality of articles and quench conflicts.
Comments on MVBW's comments
--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 23:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding
Brief reply to comment by Paul Siebert below, a comparison with
my most recent proposal demonstrates MVBW's statement is FALSE: I do not propose to remove Solzhenitsyn. Other two sources are primary, and per
WP:REDFLAG they cannot be used for such exceptional claims, and the newspaper article just briefly repeats what other sources say. In general, editorial style of MVBW can be characterized as manipulation with poor sources to push certain POVs. A typical example is
this edit, where MVBW added one primary source and one newspaper article, each of which provide the identical text. Although the latter may formally be considered as a secondary source (more precisely, op-ed, per NEWSORG), the author does not comment on the cited memoirs, so there is no analysis, evaluation or synthesis (which are necessary traits of any secondary source). In other words, MVBW uses a primary source to advance some exceptional claim, and he duplicates the source to create a false impression of wider coverage of this topic.
I think this behaviour deserves more detailed analysis of ArbCom, and I am going to prepare and submit full scale case, because the discussions on talk pages and various noticeboards aimed to convince MVBW to abandon this type behaviour lead just to repetition of the same arguments, which MVBW ignores.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 19:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@
Assayer:
RSN has failed to settle these questions
, actually, as our ongoing discussion at WP:V talk page with SarahSV demonstrated, the burden of proof rests with the user who adds a source, and that includes the proof that the source is reliable. That means consensus is needed not to remove a source, but to keep it. Actually, no consensus was achieved to keep that source during the RSN discussion you refer to, so that source can be removed. That can be done even if without additional restrictions, but applying such restriction would facilitate that process dramatically.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 20:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@
François Robere: In the case of newspapers, per
WP:NEWSORG, one has to discriminate news, editorials, and op-eds. If sourcing restrictions allow reliable primary sources, then editorials are ok.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 16:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Mkdw:,@ Worm That Turned: and other ArbCom members. This and some other related discussions forced me to reconsider my initial opinion. I propose a different, more global, solution at WP:V talk page.
In addition, independently on the outcome of the discussion at the policy talk page, a solution for the Holocaust in Poland related area should be:
To explain how that should work, let's take a look at the recent MyMoloboaccount case as an example (see this page below). Instead of reporting him, FR could just revert MyMoloboaccount's edits, and make a reference to DS and WP:REDFLAG in the edit summary. If MyMoloboaccount tried to re-add the contested material again, FR could file a standard AE request, and, had admins approached this issue in accordance with DS's letter and spirit, they would block or topic ban MyMoloboaccount. In other words, no specific source restrictions are needed, and, therefore, the users who add non-controversial or non-contested materials to the Holocaust related articles are not at risk to be sanctioned. Only those who made contested edits using low quality reliable source will be at risk, and, in my opinion, that would in accordance with DS spirit. Remember, the very idea of DS is to prevent conflicts, which means a user who is editing without being involved in a conflict should not be sanctioned. Based on my own experience, overwhelming majority of conflicts occurs in the areas covered by WP:REDFLAG, which means enforcement of REDFLAG violations resolves lion's share of conflicts.
In other words: the actual DS spirit should be as follows:
The problem is that, as a rule, many admins do not see REDFLAG violations as deserving AE attention. However, that is a problems with DS implementation, not with DS themselves. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 22:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This question was already posed at WP:AE#Gas_Van_and_sourcing_requirements — I closed it with (nominal) consensus that restrictions in topical articles do cover untopical sections therein. Mind you, the question became moot with the article having been split into topical and untopical entries. El_C 01:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a thorny issue. If the presence of the section Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany requires the entire article Gas_chamber to be subject to the same strict Antisemitism-in-Poland sourcing expectation, then the section Gas_chamber#North_Korea would have to be deleted, as is it entirely sourced from newspapers and first hand witness accounts. Alternately Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany would have to be split out into a separate article Nazi gas chambers (which currently redirects to Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany). -- Nug ( talk) 05:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I've not been involved in the particular discussion mentioned here, though I have been involved in the topic area and the ArbCom case that resulted in the sourcing restrictions subject of this ARCA request. The discussions span four articles: Gas chamber, Gas van, Nazi gas van and Soviet gas van. Two of these were split [96] [97] from the main article [98] [99] - splits which may or may not be justified on content grounds, but which were done during an ongoing discussion on sourcing, raising the concern that they were done to avoid the sourcing restrictions placed on the main article. I've reverted all of them while discussion is ongoing, [100] [101] [102] and asked for clarifications on the main TP. [103] François Robere ( talk) 15:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The core argument here seems to be that because something is covered only in questionable sources, we should relax the sourcing requirement to allow it to be included from those questionable sources. I think I'm reading that right.
I don't think it needs ArbCom to tell us that's a terrible idea.
What are the restrictions, you ask?
Who thinks it would be a bad thing if this were applied over more articles or sections? Given the abundance of excellent sources covering these topics and this timeframe, anything that does not appear in sources of this quality is very likely to be WP:UNDUE even if it's not POV-pushing. Guy ( help!) 00:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the pragmatic thing to do here would be to apply the sourcing restrictions to (i) content regarding Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland; and (ii) sections of articles which relate exclusively or primarily to Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland.
This would mean that on the Gas chamber article, the restrictions would apply to the whole of the Nazi Germany section (as that section is primarily related to Polish history during WWII), but not other sections of that article. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
The Antisemitism in Poland case found, that much of the evidence and thus much of the dispute, centered on disputed sourcing and use of low-quality sources, specifically, whether a particular source was reliable, whether a particular author was qualified, and whether a source is being misunderstood or misrepresented. The dispute which fuels My very best wishes’ clarification request is very much of the same kind. RSN has failed to settle these questions, in part because the sources are largely written in Russian and there are few uninvolved editors able to read them. The sourcing restrictions imposed on the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland have been found to have had a positive effect by stabilizing the article and limiting disputes. Since the Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism is a highly controversial and a much disputed field, content on Stalinism that is raised and connected to Nazism within an article largely dealing with the Holocaust in Poland should not be exempted from these restrictions, and these restrictions should certainly not be removed altogether.
I may note that not only is the article gas chamber, which should provide some sort of overview, an ill-conceived example for the urgent need of detailed information. The way My very best wishes expanded [109] the article basically by copying huge chunks of text including notes from the stand-alone article - all the while knowing that the “invention” of gas vans was disputed [110] - is quite revealing as is the way they put the sections “in a chronological order” [111], effectively ignoring the Nevada gas chamber of 1924. Nevertheless, quick research turns up better sources for Lithuania and North Korea, sources which would meet the high-quality sourcing restrictions. Thus, the use of better sources would improve the encyclopedia.-- Assayer ( talk) 18:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Mkdw: I think what you write would work fine, except that I would add (for completeness) that whatever is summarized from the WWII/Poland related sections elsewhere in the broad article (e.g. in the article's introductory paragraphs, in a table grouping data from several sections of the article, etc), irrespective of whether such summaries carry their own references or rely on references elsewhere in the article, would also be subject to the strict sourcing requirements of the "Antisemitism in Poland" ArbCom case. Similar for Standard appendices and footers, e.g. a "Further reading" section should not list literature of a lesser quality on WWII/Poland topics. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been active on Wikipedia since 2005 with a focus on World War II, and for as long as I can remember our coverage of Poland, and especially 1920s-1940s era Poland, has been a deeply troubled topic area. I think it's entirely sensible to require a strict adherence to
WP:RS as an attempt to ease these problems. I don't see any reason for good faith editors to struggle with this remedy: it might slow them down, but they should be pleased that it will result in better quality articles. As I have noted at
WT:MILHIST#Implications of recent ArbCom case for content creation on WWII Polish topics I wouldn't support this kind of restriction being rolled out more broadly, but in unusual circumstances like this it's a worthwhile experiment.
Nick-D (
talk) 09:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I am wary of any topic specific polices at the best of times. But when it is loaded with subjective criteria (As this is) I start to get very alarmed as to intent. I have no issue with "peer-reviewed scholarly journals", but what is an "academically focused book"? As to "reputable institutions", who decides this, what is reputable (and why is a newspaper not a reputable institution?)? This is all too fuzzy and ill defined for me. I find it odd that it did not just read ""peer-reviewed scholarly journals or works by recognized academics". Slatersteven ( talk) 10:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Unsure about "recognized institutions", it would be best if we stuck to as narrow a definition as possible. One answer may be "academic institutions", but may still be open to abuse. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Worm That Turned, I do not think that adding works by recognized academics
is a good idea. Take
this source. It is a set of lecture notes, yet an editor is arguing that he should not have been sanctioned for adding it (and some worse sources) because the scholar is well known. Such sources are not reliable and should not be used, but this change would open the door to using them. This would make the sourcing restrictions effectively meaningless. I also think that the phrasing or published by recognized institutions
needs to be tightened, as at the moment that same user is using it to argue in favor of using a newspaper, and it was indeed understood to include them by
Sandstein. This was not the intention and the wording needs to be changed to "reputable historical/scholarly institutions" or something like that.--
Ermenrich (
talk) 14:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The wording was too rigid. Making a sharp division between academic and no academic sources is not necessarily helpful--there are multiple works in any field that defy easy classification, and also many works not strictly academic that are of equal standing and reliability. Nor is being academic a guarantee of reliability--I mention for example Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi racial science, both with high national academic standing, and, in the case of Nazi science, considerable international recognition. I'd suggest a much more flexible wording 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. and works of similar quality and responsibility". Considering the examples given in the request, I think that this would deal with much of it. Newspapers, however, are a more difficult problem, and the responsibility of content of serious topics published is newspapers is variable. Depending on the topic covered, I think there is no reason not to use them, if they are used with caution, and for some related topics, they may be essential. I'd would perhaps say Newspapers andmagazines can be used ,but with caution and agreement, and in context..
I understand the felling of the arbs who have commented that this is too early to make the change, but I think the original conception was overly simplistic, and would impair rational consideration of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been following this and the original case with interest. I have plenty of experience with disputed sourcing in ARBEE from my work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles and have never once thought this level of ArbCom intervention was needed. I am fundamentally opposed to this remedy because it enters into content areas, and the arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes, not content ones. If ArbCom wants to get involved in content matters, then it should ask the community for the scope of ArbCom to be expanded and receive that imprimatur before sticking its oar into content areas. We have a perfectly serviceable reliable sources policy, and questions about whether a particular source is reliable are determined by consensus, supplemented by outside opinions via RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC if a consensus cannot be arrived at between the regular editors of the article in question. As has been noted above, if the editor that wants to use a source cannot get a consensus that a source is reliable, it cannot be used. The Article sourcing expectations remedy should be voided as it was made outside the scope of ArbCom's remit. If article sourcing guidance beyond WP:RS is needed for a particular contentious area, it should be developed by the content creators who actually know the subject area, not by ArbCom. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Piotrus at 04:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations remedy from the recent case seemed like a good idea at a time. When I thought about the restriction passed, I thought it would reinforce WP:BRD: someone (re)adds a problematic reference, they get reverted, their source is discussed on talk or at WP:RSN, and they are warned that they should not re-add it or such until a consensus is reached. A sort of 1RR for problematic sources, particularly in case of WP:REDFLAGs.
However, this recent AE ruling, where an editor ( User:MyMoloboaccount) was blocked for a week in about an hour after the request was made, for restoring a problematic source or two, with no discussion on talk anywhere, just a straight report and near insta block, gave me a major pause. It is good to require editors to use quality sources; there is a ton of bad sources to be weeded out, and adding more low quality ones needs to be discouraged (I habitually remove low quality refs and there's a lot of garbage in this topic area: ex. [112], [113]). But discouragement should not be achieved by a wiki equivalent of nuking people for small infractions. Now, I have personally written hundreds of articles related to this topic area, and I am speaking with my content creator hat now: the above AE ruling has made me scared of creating any new topics in this area, expanding them or even of reverting problematic edits by likely socks/SPIs. Because if one can get a week long block for a first infraction with no need for an explicit warning, this is an invitation to create a battleground populated by said socks/SPIs, and in a short while we will have nobody else editing this topic area.
If one can get blocked for a week+ in an hour after adding a borderline source, this opens a major can of worms. Sure, we can all agree that some sources like personal webpages, blogs or forums are unacceptable, but there are plenty that fall in a gray area, and I find it scary that a single admin is now not only apparently empowered to decide what is reliable or not, bypassing prior talk consensuses, RSN and such, but per DS could even impose year blocks and topic bans of up to a year at a whim. Let me illustrate this with some practical example of what has been used in this topic area.
In the linked AE thread, for example, a newspaper was among the sources reported as 'bad', through the closing admin judged it acceptable. That was for Rzeczpospolita (newspaper). But which other newspaper will make the cut and which will be seen as not reliable? If someone uses a more controversial paper like Sieci or Do Rzeczy as a source, will they get a week long block? A year long topic ban? For the first infraction? What about an article from a news portal like Onet.pl? Can a city portal be used to reference information about unveiling of a local monument or celebration of a remembrance event? Or a March of the Living coverage? Yes, newspapers and such are not the best sources, but are they now a gamble with a potential block or ban? Is an average admin that does probably does not speak Polish empowered to make such calls based on what they see in an English Wikipedia article on a Polish newspaper, magazine or portal (if one event exists)? If it mentions words like controversial, right-wing, left-wing, or whatever is it that they see as a red flag, it's ban hammer time?
More examples. In my talk post at Talk:Home Army where I reviewed some sources recently challenged on that talk page (and that were shortly after discussed in that AE thread) I noted that I think course notes by a reliable academic are probably ok. Apparently, they are not, since lecture notes are not peer reviewed. Ok. How about [114], a source used in recently created Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study (by the same editor who made the complain about said course notes...)? That appears to be a non-peer reviewed lecture delivered at an unspecified place (I have attended such events as a grad student and later, they can be very informal and address a room of <10 people). Ban editor for using such a source or not? What if someone cites a popular history magazine such as Histmag? Reliable or not? Toss a coin? How about a source published by Institute of National Remembrance? That institution has been criticized for some recent politicization (as described in the article body), what if the reviewing admin decides that an editor using this source, until now generally seen as acceptable, merits a ban because they find the criticism section in the IPN article convincing and feel that IPN is no longer a reliable source? How about articles from a a museum website? How about an educational website maintained by IPN, like [115] or [116]? How is it better than the course notes that were ruled 'not good enough'? Did I mention popular history magazines? IPN publishes several ( pl:Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej, pl:Biuletyn IPN „pamięć.pl”). What about a portal like [117], which contains information on Polish Righteous Among the Nations, co-financed by by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but also by a controversial NGO associated with unreliable Radio Maryja? Is that portal unreliable because it received financing from a problematic NGO? Even if it is unreliable, an average editor using it may not even be aware of the connection. Block people because they didn't investigate who funds a website sufficiently? I am an academic and an editor experienced in this topic area and in finding reliable sources myself, yet I didn't even realize some of those sources were problematic until someone else pointed it out (that a magazine I assumed was peer reviewed might not be, or that this website received some financing from a shady NGO). Can a website about local tourist attractions be used a source to note that some World War II fortifications survive as said tourist attractions ( [118])? How about websites on shipwrecks? I recently became aware of articles like List of shipwrecks in August 1941 that use many substandard sources ( [119]). If someone adds a source like this about a Polish WWII shipwreck, how many weeks of a block are they looking at? Shortly after the ArbCom case closed I asked one of our milhist ship experts to create an article on a minor ship SMS M85, and he replied that "I think that the recent Arbcom ruling on articles associated with Poland in WW2 makes writing an article impossible." He created it nonetheless, but if he used a less then impeccable source (perhaps [120] that I see in German minesweeper M18 (1939)), would he be looking a ta block? Is using a site like [121] to reference some non- WP:REDFLAG technical details about a ship or another minor detail a major offense now? How about if the article I created on Japanese pilot Naoshi Kanno was Poland-related? I referenced his appearance in an anime series to a source or two that another editor objected to ( [122]). If it was a Polish pilot, would I be blocked now? Topic banned for a year, perhaps, if it was my second or third infraction?
I hope that the above illustrate clearly that the entire Poland WWII topic has become a minefield now that very few editors will dare to edit until this issue is clarified. In particular, we need to know the answers to:
My constructive suggestion is to revise this remedy to make sure that this applies only to editors who have been warned and who engage in edit warring restoring bad sources. In other words, I think that editors should be allowed to add or readd any sources they wish, but once they have been made aware that there is an issue with a source they added through a talk page message, then a 0RR rule should apply pending an outcome of a RSN discussion that the editor who challenged the source should start. If, after made aware that a source is under review, they restore it, then they can be reported to AE. This should be done on a source basis, not editor, i.e. if an editor adds one problematic source, and few weeks later, a different one, it should be treated as separate case, not as a repeat violation (unless it is the same source). Further, an AE ruling in such a case should be not to block an editor for a first infraction, but to add the problematic source to a dedicated blacklist for this topic area. Only editors who re-add a source from said blacklist, after being made aware of its existence through a DS-like warning, should be eligible to being blocked (in practice, one should get warning "you added a source from this blacklist, if you do it again or add any other source from it you may be subject to escalating blocks and bans). To block editors for a first violation, when a source's reliability is often unclear and can merit further discussion, seems like a major battleground escalation, ignoring BDR, and encouraging editors to report their 'opponents' to AE in hope of a quick block. And yes, given the borderline and difficult to investigate nature of many sources, we need a blacklist that specifically states "this website/book/author are bad", because otherwise people will be blocked for plain ignorance or a simple mistake ("you reverted a likely sock that among other edits removed a problematic source. One year topic ban for you. Sock wins. Move on".
I end this with a reminder that I am a content creator and a professional writer, familiar with RS on and off wiki, and in my professional opinion anything more restrictive than the proposal above will create a chilling effect and a major battleground, with editors reporting one another for innocent borderline sources, until no-one is willing to touch this content area with a 10-foot long pole. Remember the adage about good intentions, please. It's enough to look at recent history for Home Army. I am a long standing, experienced contributor, and right now I am abandoning this article, and all related, to likely socks/SPI who have nothing to lose. And I am not going to revert anyone, I will just consider reporting them to AE, since any other course of action is an invitation to get myself blocked. Maybe they will gut this and other articles, removing bad sources, good sources, and whatever else they want, but I am frankly scared or restoring anything, if it is up to a semi-random admin to decide that maybe I merit a year-long topic ban because I added or restored a single borderline source. Is this the type of editing environment this remedy was meant to foster? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
PS. Molobo cannot make a statement as he is currently blocked, unreviewed appeal pending.
PPS. There is also a simple date error with this finding that I raised here (date 1933 should be 1939). I don't think that merits a separate thread.
-->
I was not notified of this request, even though I am listed as involved. This is an appeal of an enforcement action couched in the terms of a clarification request. It should be dismissed because, per applicable policy, only the sanctioned editor may appeal an enforcement action.
In fact, MyMoloboaccount is trying to make an appeal on their talk page, but hasn't said in which forum they want to make the appeal. Maybe an admin can help them out with that. The question of whether I was right to block MyMoloboaccount should then properly be discussed in the course of that appeal.
As to the broader point raised by Piotrus that it is not a good idea to make individual admins decide which sources are inadequate and therefore blockable, I don't really have a view. It's for ArbCom to decide whether such a measure is necessary in this topic area. I assume they chose to do so after careful consideration because the normal method of determining the appropriateness of sources through consensus has failed. But the authority given to admins here isn't really any broader than under discretionary sanctions, which already apply to the topic area. Sandstein 16:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Mymoloboaccount has been here long enough to know better. [124] is a flagrant misrepresentation of the source. Mymoloboaccount is lucky to have received only a one week block for this. Guy ( help!) 11:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Molobo is well aware that their editing is seen as problematic, see here. Their current arguing over the block only demonstrates either a lack of understanding of what a reliable source is, in which case competence issues seem present, or else willful disregard for it. There is no reason to hollow out these requirements because you're "scared". Molobo's block is, if anything, a sign that they are effective. He is fully aware of the remedy and the block, having participated in the case, and he's been here for years and years, so he ought to have a better sense of sourcing anyway.
If you have concerns about other editors' edits, you are also free to report them. The hope was this would clean up the area. Relaxing the restrictions would undermine this goal.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
In general, users who are new to Wikipedia or to a topic area aren't blocked immediately upon infringing on a rule - they're notified and asked to participate in the TP, as it should be. Molobo isn't either - he's familiar with the topic area, took part in the ArbCom case, [125] and later used as justification for an edit. [126] He's well aware that his edits are problematic - I can count at least six editors and two admins who expressed their concerns about him, in his presence, in several fora.
Editors who regularly discuss their edits, and who do not engage in source misrepresentation or needless edit wars - and I count Piotrus and myself as two - should not feel threatened by these DS. While we in theory we could be served with DS without prior warning, in practice it doesn't happen often.
As for the "chilling effect" of the sanctions: the ArbCom case subject of this amendment request had two editors T-banned, who after the case were blocked (one indef). ANI and AE cases resulted in another editor T-banned, and two more blocked. Another editor, who was already T-banned, postponed her appeal. Five editors were "left standing", but they are joined by a handful of editors who frequent the TA less often, and an unknown number of editors who edit in specific articles or on specific issues. All in all, anywhere from 5-15 editors are active in the topic area at any one time (not counting copy editors, reference fixers and bots), some of which have only become active in the TA after the ArbCom case. In short, there's no evidence of a "chilling effect" on the regular editing activities within the TA. François Robere ( talk) 15:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
As written, this sanction is incredibly vague - it could be argued to apply to almost any subject associated with either the Western or Eastern front in World War II - any area where Polish forces fought, any ship that served with the Polish Navy or with the German navy at the start of the war, any piece of military equipment in service during the German invasion of Poland or the Soviet campaign - and demands that only academic sources be used - a standard that is well in excess of anywhere else on Wikipedia, and if applied strictly will make it impossible to edit in many areas, including most of Military History, as someone can always argue that a source isn't academic enough and demand that the content it supports must be removed on pain of an Arbcom block. Statements by Arbcom members on the case above make it clear that the ruling is expected to be applied widely. This has a clear chilling effect and makes a mockery of Wikipedia being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as it means that only someone with access to a high quality university library and with the backing of a large bunch of supporters who can support them at Arbcom. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Nigel Ish. This remedy does have a chilling effect and is an impediment to those who don’t have access to a university library.
Articles published in academic journals necessarily present new and/or novel perspectives on some topic, the dissemination of these new viewpoints to other academics is the raison d'être of these journals. As such a particular article doesn’t reflect the main stream view, but the viewpoint of the author, by definition a minority viewpoint at the point of publication. It is only when that article is cited by other articles and books that we can get a measure of the acceptance of that viewpoint. It must be noted that the peer review process in history journals isn’t intended to provide a measure of acceptance or endorsement of the view, but, as Anthony Grafton from Princeton University puts it, to assure the authors are not out “wearing their magenta socks”, i.e. to assure themselves their article doesn’t contain glaring mistakes in presentation.
Arbcom has always been about conduct, not content, and proscribing the sourcing of an article is surely not what Arbcom should be doing. Wikipedia already has mechanisms in place to deal with sourcing, and whether to impose stricter content source rules on a particular topic area should really be the decision of the wider community via a RFC.
A way forward in this case would be for Arbcom to suspend this content related remedy pending an outcome to a RFC to the wider community. -- Nug ( talk) 21:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems Nigel Ish and Nug are talking about totally different subjects. Indeed, I concede what Nigel Ish's arguments are partially reasonable: it may be problematic to find, for example, some technical characteristics of some concrete WWII time battleship in peer-reviewed publications. However, it is equally hard to expect a hot dispute about that. In contrast, the Holocaust in Poland topic is an area of incessant conflict between two POVs, both of them are strongly politically motivated and, they seriously affect some national feelings. Obviously, the worst POV-pusher is using the worst sources, and the best way to stop an edit war is not 1RR or "Consensus required", and not even topic bans. The best way to fight against POV-pushers is to deprive them of their main weapon - their sources. Which sources national POV-pushers are using the most frequently? Some obscure books, local newspapers, questionable web sites. If such sources are not allowed - the conflict ends.
Regarding Nug's "This remedy does have a chilling effect and is an impediment to those who don’t have access to a university library." Exactly. If you want to write about such a sensitive topic as Holocaust - go to a local library, find good sources - and write. Jstor provides a free subscription (several articles per month), some journals are free, google scholar provides citations - those who want to write good content have a lot of tools. If, instead of that, they prefer to collect various rumors at the very dark recesses of Internet, then
WP:NOTHERE is the only option.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 21:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@
DGG: I got a much better idea: if some source has been cited by peers, and the references can be found via google.scholar (or some other scientific/scholarly search engine), such a source can be used. This is the approach I myself use (I very rarely use sources that cannot be found by gscholar or jstor search), and this approach was recognized as good
in this peer-reviewed publication, which is specifically devoted to the analysis of content disputes in Wikipedia. With regard to newspapers, there is currently a discussion about a modification of that part of the policy, and it seems a consensus is that only very reputable newspapers are "mainstream newspapers" (good sources per WP:V), and even for them
WP:NEWSORG should work, which means editorial and op-ed materials are primary sources about author's opinion.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 22:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
As I already explained in the previous case, I reconsidered my initial opinion, and I think no specific sourcing restrictions are needed in the Holocaust in Poland area. Instead, admins should be advised to strictly enforce any reported WP:REDFLAG violations, because, in my opinion, it is the position of admins who are active on the AE page which makes DS effectively not working, and the "Sourcing expectation" clause is a non-optimal attempt to partially fix that problem. All needed rules are already present in standard DS, concretely, guide.expect say that editors must strictly comply with all applicable policies and guidelines, and one our policy says:
Indeed, if someone made an non-controversial edit using a poor but reliable source, that is ok, as soon as such edit has not been contested. Let's take the recent Molobo vs FR case as an example: there were no reason to report him for usage of a single garbage source, a simple revert with explanations would be sufficient. After the revert, Molobo was expected either to demonstrate his claim was not exceptional, or to provide multiple good sources, and, up to that point, there is nothing in this conflict that deserves AE. However, if Molobo ignores FR's concern, FR has a right to report Molobo, and AE admins must take such a report seriously. In my opinion, that scheme, if it is adopted, will decrease both a risk for good faith editors to be sanctioned and admin's burden, for in situation when both parties know that REDFLAG violations may inflict serious sanctions dramatically facilitates their willingness to achieve consensus.
Unfortunately, a current admins' attitude makes such scenario unrealistic, because the standard response would be "that is just a content dispute, not actionable". That attitude makes all conflicts in DS areas so long and painful, that that creates an artificial situation when one party looses patience and... and admins perfectly know how to deal with such cases.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 22:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
With respect ot the specific request here, I agree with Piotrus that the wording was too rigid. Making a sharp division between academic and no academic sources is not necessarily helpful--there are multiple works in any field that defy easy classification, and also many works not strictly academic that are of equal standing and reliability. Nor is being academic a guarantee of reliability--I mention for example Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi racial science, both with high national academic standing, and, in the case of Nazi science, considerable international recognition. I'd suggest a much more flexible wording 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. and works of similar quality and responsibility". Considering the examples given in the request, I think that this would deal with much of it. Newspapers, however, are a more difficult problem, and the responsibility of content of serious topics published is newspapers is variable. I wouldn't rule them out entirely, but I don't know quite how to word it. {Possibly '"and other responsible sources bywide general agreement"' . ) DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
What of the "casual" editor of one of the articles to which these restrictions apply - by that I mean someone who is not deeply involved within the narrow confines of the subject, but adds what they believe to be helpful content from a source that would be OK elsewhere in Wikipedia? How would such an editor know that these restrictions apply or, even, how to comply with them? If the casual editor is going to be sanctioned, how does this fit with
WP:GOODFAITH? Surely a central principle of Wikipedia is being subverted in order to control a few rogue problem editors. Feel free to point out to me if you think I have misunderstood (but me saying this emphasises the apparent complexity of rules with draconian penalties).
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 23:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
So these restrictions should only apply to persistent and knowing offenders who ignore warnings. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 23:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This should be a request for amendment. I think this sourcing restriction should be removed and never used again for the reasons I explained in my request. The discretionary sanctions already existing in this subject area are more than sufficient to handle any problems.
A lot of scenarios have been developed, where scores of unsuspecting editors are going to be blocked immediately for using anything other than peer-reviewed scholarly studies. This amounts to scare tactics without actual evidence that these threats are real. But, as a matter of fact, RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC often fail when it comes to certain disputes about whether a particular source is reliable or not. I can name various examples of questionable sources which were determined acceptable and reliable, including interviews with convicted Holocaust perpetrators commenting on “Operation Reinhard”. Instead of discussing abstract scenarios and opening loopholes, the question thus should be: What is the objective of these restrictions? Is this objective acchieved? -- Assayer ( talk) 20:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
In my experience there are two main arguments to fend off a more restricted use of sources, e.g. of scholarly sources only. According to the first argument even primary sources are admissible when they are used for “uncontroversial”, “factual” information which may not be covered by scholarly sources, but is allegedly needed to provide for a “comprehensive” article. The second argument, namely “consensus”, is used to subdue criticism by stating that the use of such sources has been decided upon by “consensus” and that critics should “drop the stick”, even though the criticism and the debate itself demonstrate that “consensus” has changed. Thereby primary sources like SS personal files hosted at state archives, self-published publications, publications by SS veteran organizations and scores of militaria literature have all been declared permissible reliable sources. Yes, article sourcing guidance should be developed by “content creators”, but sometimes some “content creators” become a gated community at odds with the guidelines of the community as a whole and in need of some input from the outside.
@MvbW If I understand correctly, Molobo has not been blocked, because they inserted references to ‘’Jane’s Fighting Ships’’ in an article on a German minesweeper sunk in 1939. And you have not been blocked at all, yet.-- Assayer ( talk) 13:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Mostly copied from the first ARCA thread on this case, because it is just as relevant here as there. I have plenty of experience with disputed sourcing in ARBEE from my work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles and have never once thought this sort of ArbCom intervention was needed. I am fundamentally opposed to this remedy because it enters into content areas, and the arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes, not content ones. If ArbCom wants to get involved in content matters, then it should ask the community for the scope of ArbCom to be expanded and receive that imprimatur before sticking its oar into content areas. We have a perfectly serviceable reliable sources policy, and questions about whether a particular source is reliable are determined by consensus, supplemented by outside opinions via RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC if a consensus cannot be arrived at between the regular editors of the article in question. As has been noted elsewhere, if the editor that wants to use a source cannot get a consensus that a source is reliable, it cannot be used. The Article sourcing expectations remedy should be voided as it was made outside the scope of ArbCom's remit. I think the comments about the chilling effect of this remedy reflect quite reasonable concerns, and these sanctions have a great deal of potential to be used as weapons in content disputes. If article sourcing guidance beyond WP:RS is needed for a particular contentious area, it should be developed by the content creators who actually know the subject area, not by ArbCom. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Like Peacemaker's comment above, the comment I made at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland also applies here. In short, while I think that a remedy requiring quality sourcing is justified, the current remedy is too narrow as it rules out high quality but non-scholarly works. I'd suggest changing it to something like "Only high quality sources may be used. Preference should be given to peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books. Other reliable sources may be used to augment scholarly works or where such works are not available." I have no opinion on the mechanism for enforcing this, noting especially that this topic area has subject to very long-running and serious problems so strict penalties are likely justified, but the usual arrangement where editors who are not aware of the sanction are warned first should obviously apply. Nick-D ( talk) 09:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the above discussion, that we already enforce sourcing thresholds requiring a higher level of quality than that of WP:RS alone - they're used in two of the largest areas of Wikipedia, those being BLP and medical content. Since those areas seem to be working fine, many of the claims about major problems arising from this sanction would therefore seem to be incorrect. While the exact threshold is different in this case (being roughly in between the two in terms of restrictiveness), any argument that would apply equally in those areas needs to establish why this particular topic should be considered to be uniquely different.
The sanction seems to have been successful at preventing the use of poor sources to cause disruption (an issue of behavior, not content), and that should be recognized. Of course, it is entirely possible this particular threshold could be refined, but requests to do so should be based in reasoned argument as to why specific categories of sources have an equivalent level of reliability to the sources that are already permitted, as opposed to the (IMO quite hyperbolic) rhetoric used in some of the comments above. Sunrise ( talk) 09:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by the arguments above that using university sources places an undue burden on editors. For one, the militaria sources preferred by these editors are more difficult to obtain and not necessarily cheaper. For another, we have WP:RX where volunteers are happy to help you get the source you need, and an increasing number of academic publications in continental Europe are open-access. I'm also not convinced by the hyperbole that someone is going to be immediately blocked for using a non-compliant source. To the contrary, source restrictions can be very helpful for getting rid of the ethno-nationalist POV pushing that plagues this area, simply because academic sources are not likely to contain ethno-nationalist POV pushing.
That said, minor uses of news sources can sometimes be helpful for recent updates on a topic (I cite two of them in this Good Article in the subject area). How can we allow that flexibility while discouraging their use for disputed content? I think that it could be amended to explicitly allow the use of RS but non-academic sources on minor parts of an article that deal with technical information or recent updates that are not covered in academic sources. I hesitate to expand that to all areas of an article that are not covered by academic sources because that would likely lead to unbalanced articles where the areas that are not sourced to as good quality sources are covered in more detail and depth than they should be. Like @JzG, I don't think we should relax our sourcing restrictions at all for areas that are only covered by questionable sources. b uidh e 17:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by TonyBallioni at 23:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
This is coming out of the frustration that is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive. As a bit of background, since Icewhiz's ban we've had a myriad of accounts come out of no where with a sudden interest in this topic area. Invariably they are on proxies and pretty much any account that remotely resembles Icewhiz is being reported to that SPI. Some of them are likely him. Some of them are likely some other banned editor editing in violation or a block, and in some cases might actually be a legitimate alternative account that agrees with Icewhiz's positions, but is editing under a new account and a proxy for privacy reasons in an area where there may be legal consequences off-wiki. The thing is, we can't tell, and this is an issue. I sent this in an email to Berean Hunter, Mkdw, and Joe Roe about the ongoing Icewhiz case, but I only see two possible ways to deal with the influx of new accounts in the areas: either we apply 500/30 to the topic area like we do for the Israel-Palestine articles, or we start blocking obvious sock accounts on the proxies in this area until they declare the account owner to ArbCom/the blocking CU. Neither is a particularly fun option and they both have their downsides, but I think 500/30 has the advantage of not blocking individuals who may have a valid reason for an alternative account or may be a legitimate good faith user on a proxy or VPN. It is also pretty likely to work for the specific Icewhiz related part of this problem: his other main area of interest was Israel-Palestine articles and we've had zero problems with him showing up there. Note that I don't think all of these accounts are him, I think there are likely a fair amount of users using sockpuppets in this topic area. We just can't connect them to the original account because of the technical limitations of CheckUser. Employing 500/30 in the area that's probably had the most issues with socking and content disputes in the last year would pretty much put a stop to it. I know it's a fairly big step to take, but the area is smaller than Israel-Palestine, and the positive impacts in my view would likely outweigh the negatives.
The history of Jews and Antisemitism in Poland, including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construedwhich I think would both expand the scope to areas where the current wording wouldn’t help, and also narrow it to get away from stuff like random Polish army brigades. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I support this. Please note that yesterday I presented new evidence and analysis of patterns at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz that is (at this point) not yet archived in the link Tony provided. I will also concur with Tony, wearing my hat of an editor active in this topic area for ~15 years, that I have never seen any significant socking until Icewhiz got banned - then boom, dozen+ possible socks appear. Yes, this TA has been problematic for ages, but socking is a new and unwelcome twist here. My only concern is that WP:500/30 may not deal with the more invested socks; ex. the one Tony just blocked, I dream of Maple ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), reached the 500/30 threshold before being blocked. A number of other reported accounts are past 500/30. Extended semi will help weed out some fly-by-night socks, and we had a few of those appear, but I feel, overall, that the other solution ("blocking obvious sock accounts on the proxies in this area until they declare the account owner to ArbCom/the blocking CU") will need to be implemented as well since IMHO most of the disruption (see linked SPI) came from accounts that would not be stopped by 500/30. This TA has sadly seen enough recent socks immune to 500/30 that "guilty until proven innocent" seems necessary for a few years. And after all, we don't generally allow Wikipedia:Open proxies, TOR, or such; and those policies say that users "in good standing" can apply to CU for exemptions per Wikipedia:IP block exemption - so if some Chinese dissident is really interested in this topic area, they can follow the procedure, can't they? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Full support. There are a lot of IPs, "socks", newbies and other unfamiliar "faces" around who are very definitely not Icewhiz, [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] who for whatever reasons rarely get reported.
For the sake of everyone's sanity, get it going and stop complaining about editors who are long gone. [157] François Robere ( talk) 10:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I support making sure Icewhiz socks are finally dealt with, this individual attacked people's families and personal lives in real life and has manipulated numerous articles on Wikipedia that will need years to be corrected, even going as far as claiming that Nazis in Poland only killed Polish "political dissidents". The numerous socks that have been active show a unprecedented level of obsession we know only from some very determined sock masters like English Patriot Man and have already attacked users on their personal talk pages. This shouldn't be happening on encyclopedia. Any form of sock puppetry or meat puppetry for Icewhiz should be dealt with firmly to avoid further manipulations and harassment for the good of the project. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(As perhaps the only commenter so far not really involved.) I think that TonyBallioni may be correct, that of the two options offered, 500/30 is the least disruptive. Some editors may worry that 500/30 is becoming too widespread, but my observation is that it's really only used for the most controversial subject areas, and it's largely on our presentation of information in these areas that Wikipedia will judged by our readers. We need to be as squeaky clean as possible on those topics, so that our reputation for accuracy, neutrality and relevance remains as strong as is possible. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Sarah made a good point here. Also, WP:PC should be considered as an alternative to 30/500. Levivich dubious – discuss 03:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I've been involved in the topic and I'd encourage Arbcom to adopt this amendment. At the very least, SEMI should be applied to remove disruption from IPs in the mainspace, with 30/500 applied to BLPs; see for example my post to RFPP in re: Barbara Engelking:
Still, given the amount of apparently dedicated SPAs and socks, ECP seems the way to go across the board. It works in the Israel-Palestine area and will work in this topic area. It's simply not an area for newbie accounts to cut their teeth on. Good-faith accounts would still be able to post comments and request changes on Talk pages. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't edit in this area, but I have a lot of experience with the 500/30 rule in the ARBPIA domain. Any restriction will discourage some good editors, but overall 500/30 has been of benefit to the area. It doesn't prevent all disruptive socking (a particularly bad one was blocked just recently) but it raises the effort enough to keep away all but the most dedicated. Good editors who want to contribute before achieving 500/30 can use the "edit request" feature on the talk page and such requests that are reasonable are usually performed. That also gives us a chance to teach newbies about things like NPOV and RS before they are allowed into articles by themselves. Zero talk 14:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the scope, it should include events in the aftermath of WW2 such as the 1946 Kielce pogrom, and it should include modern debate on the subject. I don't know if that follows already from "broadly construed" but any motion should make it clear. Zero talk 02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the proposed amendment is that the potential scope is colossal - it effectively prohibits IPs and new registered editors from editing anything to do with World War Two in Europe - because Poles fought almost everywhere in Europe, or from editing any article on Polish towns and cities that have a history section that touches on the Second World War - and all this to stop what appears to be a single editor? If this is passed then the disruptive editors will have won. Note that if low traffic articles are locked then edit requests on the talk pages either won't be seen or will be ignored. If you have to use ECP - then you need to make the scope tight to minimise the damage that it causes, otherwise the disruption to the encyclopedia will be too great. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I would ask Arbcom to consider forwarding Icewhiz's past conduct to T&S. They seem to be a good candidate for a SanFranBan and WMF action if they refuse to comply.
That being said, I am slightly worried by the new-found use of Icewhiz's involvement as a "grandma's nightshirt"-type defense by people who, have more than a decade of history editing in a battleground-like way. Icewhiz's socking and harassment are horrible and deserve a SanFranBan, but he showed a clear nationalistic POV and a deficiency in our article on Warsaw concentration camp. I am worried that rolling out 30/500 here will further entrench that POV here on Wikipedia in ways that Israel-Palestine did not because of the smaller pool of interested people. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
If we must have one of these two awful solutions (and yes, despite a couple of comments, ECP definitely is being used too much), then 30/500 should be applied to the narrowest possible branch. The history of Jews and Antisemitism in Poland, including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed
, is more preferable to the slightly broader one below in the Arbs' section. It's not that it would be applied to every random Polish brigade, but that it will be applied to anything not firmly justified by the case. If it could be handled by usual processes, it should not be handled by a more severe method.
I'd suggest The history of Jews and Antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland.
as the narrowest viable route, and hope it would be considered.
Nosebagbear (
talk) 10:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski wrote an article about Wikipedia for the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza in February. He alleges that Polish nationalists are distorting Holocaust history on the English Wikipedia. The newspaper has a daily print circulation of 107,000 and 110,000 digital subscribers ( as of 2017). Is it not possible that some of these new accounts are people in Poland responding to that article? Poland's Act on the Institute of National Remembrance makes it a civil offence to imply that Poland shared responsibility for the Holocaust, which could explain the use of proxies.
Recent examples of good edits that would not have happened with 30/500 protection in place:
50/300 would have prevented all of the above, and there are many more such examples in this topic area. SarahSV (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.
Enacted - Moneytrees🌴 Talk🌲 Help out at CCI! 18:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Volunteer Marek at 07:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This is an appeal of my topic ban “from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland” as enacted on September 22, 2019, per the portion of the decision which states This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed. [165]
Both myself and User:Icewhiz were topic-banned as a result of the case and we were both subject to an interaction ban. Subsequently for reasons which the committee should be familiar with, and which I mention below, Icewhiz was indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia, and then by the office, from all WikiMedia projects. Also relevant is the fact that WikiMedia’s Trust and Safety team assisted me in addressing the off-wiki harassment that Icewhiz was pursuing against me. [166] [167]
At the outset I would like to bring to the committee’s attention the fact that my topic ban which resulted from the case was NOT based on any issue with the contents of my edit to article space. There were no findings of facts relating to POV or abuse of sources or any other similar issues. Instead, the topic ban was the result of the nature of my interactions with User:Icewhiz, on talk pages and various discussions. In particular I received the TB because the committee found that both of us displayed a battleground attitude, that I was incivil to Icewhiz, that I accused him of “making stuff up” (incidentally, Icewhiz’s own topic ban was based at least partly on the committee having similar issues with Icewhiz’s edits, particularly on BLPs [168]). At same time the committee acknowledged that Icewhiz had made false accusations against me, [169] made ethnically derogatory remarks, used inflammatory rhetoric and attempted to make extremely insulting insinuations against me. [170]
Essentially, the committee did not find anything wrong with my edits but did issue the topic ban for my incivil attitude towards him. This is understandable as I acknowledge that I did not always react well to Icewhiz’s provocations, especially given their extremely serious nature. I want to stress that Icewhiz was the only person that has managed to provoke such a reaction in me, and that even committee members acknowledged that there were no such problems with my editing outside of this narrow dispute (Arbitrator PreMeditatedChaos wrote in one of the relevant Findings of Fact: even Icewhiz has pointed out that VM's behavior is not an issue except in this topic area [171])
As such, in addition to more than a full year having elapsed, with Icewhiz being indefinitely banned from all WikiMedia project the reason for the topic ban has ceased to exist. In fact, given the subsequent events – the campaign of harassment that Icewhiz launched against me and numerous other Wikipedia editors (including several admins) – I had considered appealing the topic ban even before the one year deadline elapsed. In the end, because I was (and still am) very busy in real life with work and family issue, I decided that I might as well wait out the full year.
Even though Icewhiz is no longer on Wikipedia (although there was extensive socking in early 2020, however, the arbitration motion you guys passed in May [172] which implemented the 500/30 restriction seems to have been quite successful in curbing it) I do want to note that I have had quite a bit of time to rethink and reflect upon the events leading up to the arbitration case and the topic ban. I fully admit that I overreacted at the time and should have worked harder at keeping my cool. Lack of subsequent issues (*) in the year following should show that.
At the same time I also want to mention that my overall engagement with Wikipedia has been substantially reduced. This is mostly due to being much busier in real life for reasons related to the covid pandemic.
Thanks for the consideration and take care of yourselves
(*) In the interest of full disclosure I should note that early on, about a week or two after the enactment of the topic ban, I did violate it and was given a short block as a result of an AE report, enacted by Bradv. The topic ban went into effect on September 22, 2019. The block was on October 10, 2019. I have not been sanctioned for any violations of the topic ban since then (more than a year) and that instance happened in part due to my misunderstanding of the scope of the ban (the edit concerned an author’s work about World War I, although the same author was also known for writing about World War II)
@ Beeblebrox: Honestly, since this was in April/May of last year, which is eons in Wikipedia time I don't even remember off the top off my head what this was about (apparently, Levivich couldn't remember it either since he had to go do digging for it only after your prompted them to follow up their vague accusations). Checking back through history, it seems that with regards to his diff 2 and diff 3 (same thing) there was an allegation that an edit of my violated the topic ban. I thought at the time they didn't since my edit concerned POST WAR Polish history, which would be outside the scope ban. There was some discussion on the issue, with finally User:El C saying that "the topic ban violation is not clear cut" [173]. Basically, while my edit was NOT about the topic there was a chunk of (newly added!) material in the relevant article that was (which I didn't touch, as El C explicitly noted "Volunteer Marek limits himself just to a discussion of the post-war time period (which he has been doing)"). However, he also pointed out that the fact that a different portion of the article dealt with WW2 would make it difficult for me to discuss some of the relevant issues on talk w/o violating the TB. That was a fair point. As a result I said ok, just to be sure, I won't edit the article anymore [174].
Sometimes it's very difficult to know what is covered and what is not covered by a given topic ban, especially since, as I noted elsewhere, World War 2 casts such a huge shadow over Polish history and culture that editing almost anything related to Poland will sooner or later bring you close to that topic. If this here was a topic ban violation (and it's not clear it was) then it was inadvertent one and I think I proceeded correctly - after it was brought to an admin's attention and they said it was "borderline", I disengaged from the article. I haven't edited it since. The matter was resolved and it hasn't come up again.
Levivich was NOT involved in this dispute in any capacity. I'm not sure why he feels that he in particular has to bring it here or what his motivation for doing so is. Volunteer Marek 01:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am not able to support this appeal, because I do not think it would be a net positive for the project or the topic area. Just over a week ago, they inserted this unhelpful comment on a dispute that they are not involved in. [175] Note, no evidence that I was edit warring was presented, nor did VM file a complaint against edit warring at another page, to be decided by an administrator. (I believe this is a spill-over from a content dispute on List of genocides by death toll, where VM is arguing for the inclusion of Polish Operation as a genocide. Arguably this skirts their topic ban because of the proximity to World War II.) ( t · c) buidhe 19:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I was going to stay out of this, but it's just not true (as arbs state below) that VM hasn't violated his topic ban since Bradv's block in October 2019. He's been warned for tban violations since then (for example, see his UTP history). There are also AE/AN/ANI threads in the last year; I don't remember offhand if they were for problems in or outside the topic area, or if they had any merit. But neither I nor any other member of the community should have to go digging to present this history to Arbcom. VM ought to list all of these things for the arbs to review. Levivich harass/ hound 16:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The topic ban is one of the few remaining vestiges of the Icewhiz-era. It made mild sense as a way to prevent BATTLEGROUND that Icewhiz was creating and too often goading VM into engaging him (IIRC it came as a set combo with the interaction ban and Ice received the mirror equivalents of both of these as well). Now that Icewhiz is gone (the main account, as he still continues socking and real-life harassment and manipulation, for which he was site banned - Trust&Safety can provide further details if any ArbCom member requires them, I am sure) it makes no sense to keep VM restricted; all it does is that it still empowers Icewhiz behind the scenes and as such it is one of his 'victories' we can and should undo to move on.
Regarding preceding comments by Buidhe and Levivich, they are either disappointing petty attempts to keep people one disagreed with under the heel and out of one's hair, or worse, evidence of proxying for Icewhiz. Levivich has not been much active in the topic areas VM frequents/ed, and I think neither had interacted much with VM, yet now we see some obscure diffs from articles they never edited or discussions they did not participate in (!) concerning editor they should not care about. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I commend members of the Committee for expressing views in favour of, as well as an immediate motion, to rescind the ban. That is the right call. Not least because I don't think there's any indication that Volunteer Marek is likely to edit disruptively in the topic area. I'd like to also add the following emphasis to the record: the level of harassment that Volunteer Marek has endured (that I know of) is so beyond the pale, it's truly sickening. So needless to say, wide latitude should be extended to him for any past misconduct or near-misconduct which were directly impacted by this sinister and nefarious abuse. Anyway, looks like all is going well as far as this amendment is concerned — apologies in advance to VM in case I just jinxed it! El_C 05:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that removing this topic ban, imposed when the editor was under extreme harassment by the banned Icewhiz, is a good thing for the encyclopedia, and I hope that the arbs will come to the same conclusion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The now-banned Icewhiz's misbehaviors on Wikipedia, prior to his ban and since, have been truly egregious and should be counted as an extenuating circumstance to some of VM's responses to Icewhiz's provocative actions. I believe it is time to welcome VM back to a subject area to which he can make substantial contributions.
Thank you.
Nihil novi ( talk) 22:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I am a great fan of TBANs, which usually work well to protect controversial areas of the project subject to Arbitration cases from egregious disruption by POV-pushers. However, I don't think this description applies to VM's behaviour that led to the TBAN. Considering Icewhiz has been ejected, and VM doesn't appear to have clearly breached the TBAN, I think Arbs should accept VM's request in good faith. Of course, in the tradition of supplying people with enough rope, VM should be under no illusions that any future disruption in the TBAN space will likely result in an indefinite TBAN. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Remedy 4b of Antisemitism in Poland ("Volunteer Marek topic-banned") is rescinded.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Girth Summit at 15:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The background to this request is in the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Volunteer (book), and there is some further discussion at User talk:DGG#Request for help with a request for clarification. I am not asking for the committee to make a decision on the specific source under discussion at those locations; however, the discussions seem to have reached something of an impasse because of people's differing understandings of how we should interpret the remedy's wording. I am therefore asking the committee to consider three questions:
In the above-linked discussions, a number of different possible interpretations of that phrase have been put forward. Some have suggested that its intention is to allow the use of any book which is written about an academic subject (such as history). Others have argued that it allows the use of any book that is written using academic methodologies. I myself have interpreted it more narrowly, believing that the intention was to restrict sources to work intended for an academic audience, which would usually (but not quite always) have been written by an academic and published by an academic press. It seems unlikely to me that the committee would have intended to restrict any periodicals aside from peer-reviewed scholarly journals, but then to allow the use of popular histories and/or heroic biographies which, however well-researched, are not 'academically focused' in my understanding of the phrase.
Please note that I have intentionally not named any other editors as parties to this request, simply to avoid giving anyone any unnecessary alarm. I have no reason to believe that any of the parties to the discussions I've linked to are acting in anything but good faith, we have simply reached an impasse because of our different interpretations of this particular phrase. I will notify all users involved in the discussions about this request. GirthSummit (blether) 15:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
First of all, kudos to Girth Summit for the no-fault design of this ARCA (and thanks for letting me know about it). I see you! Now, I don't presume to speak for the Committee, about WP:APLRS or whatever (except when I do, often!), but questions 1 + 2 just seem like an obvious yes to me. It is question 3 that is really of interest here, I think. Elucidation from the Committee on this would serve well to better editorial practices, content-wise, and admin ones, enforcement-wise.
Finally, returning to questions 1+2: it is no secret that I strongly believe that the darkest chapter in our species' history demands WP:MEDRS-like sourcing requirements (APLRS' community-passed sourcing requirement counterpart). I think this was well within Committee discretion to mandate, and one of the best and most important Arbitration decisions bar none, in fact. Especially, considering the intensive whitewashing efforts by the Polish state, as can be seen in its Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance. El_C 16:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
'serial killer'-liketo describe any editor — even banned ones, even Icewhiz. That is totally inappropriate, and a BLP violation. Anyway, I mentioned before how I felt Icewhiz [et al.?] was more of a symptom (of key changes to Polish law and to the aims of the Polish state), but I don't really wish to expound and expand on that in this forum (if at all).
First of all thanks to GirthSummit for opening this and notifying everyone.
- Editors removing a source for failing to comply with this restriction must specify the reason it fails to comply. Sources thus removed may not be reinstated without prior discussion.
- This is meant to encourage discussion and prevent edit warring, but in a way that's flexible enough to keep the process short and make "stonewalling" difficult (thanks to editors who helped hone this).
- Repeated removal of compliant sources under a pretense of non-compliance is equivalent to repeated insertion of non-compliant sources.
- This will not prevent editors from removing compliant sources for legitimate reasons (OR, DUE, BLP...), only from abusing APLRS (thanks to Paul Siebert for proposing this).
François Robere ( talk) 16:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Added explanation. François Robere ( talk) 22:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
We're at a point where the back of the dispute has been brokenHardly. A short while after WP:APL was concluded three other editors were blocked or T-banned; [186] [187] [188] [189] in June another one was blocked (the imposing admin, who was knee-deep in the TA, has since been desysopped); [190] in August an I-ban was imposed between three editors; [191] in February an editor was
Consider, for example, the technical specifications of a Polish naval ship from WWII... any reliable source for naval history should doYes, it should. We've discussed it before, and there's little reason not to see eg. Jane's or Lloyd's as "reputable publishers" under APLRS.
On #1. I believe that any sourcing/content restrictions should be decided by community, just as WP:MEDRS was developed. The discussion would help to properly decide if such restrictions are actually needed and improve the quality of such restrictions. This sourcing restriction by Arbcom arbitrary changes Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of the "five pillars". Is not it something for community?
On #2: Subject areas are different. Yes, I can understand the rationale behind the WP:MEDRS ("Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information. For this reason, all biomedical information must be based...".), even though I do not necessarily agree with it. Now, let's imagine not allowing journalistic sources and original peer reviewed articles (as WP:MEDRS does) in the area of history and politics. That would be a disaster. This is because many notable but less significant sub-subjects are covered only (or mostly) in such excluded sources. Sure, if there are scholarly and non-scholarly sources, then the scholarly ones are preferred, but this is already written in the policy.
On #3 (@CaptainEek) and #2. Yes, we must use the best sources. But the best sources depend on the specific narrowly defined subject or question that needs to be described. For example, the best and most detailed biography of person X can be a book written for the general public by someone without a PhD degree (just like the "Volunteer"). Moreover, a specific question or aspect can frequently be described in detail only in a few journalistic publications and mentioned in passing in several books. But with such sourcing restriction, such content simply can not be included to a page, even though it frequently should. Furthermore, it is important to use not only the best sources, but all RS on the subject (we are not talking about questionable sources here). By removing certain types of RS, we betray WP:NPOV and make our pages more biased. I agree with DGG.
Replies to comments by others
|
---|
|
I'm not opposed to the sourcing restriction in principle but I do have a few comments and observations:
With regard to Francois Robere's proposals above - #1 is okay, conditional on the restriction remaining in place, but #2 ("Repeated removal of compliant sources under a pretense of non-compliance is equivalent to the repeated insertion of non-compliant sources.") is a VERY bad idea. There are all kinds of reasons why a text based on a source which meets sourcing requirements should still be removed - WP:UNDUE, WP:COPYVIO, cherry picking, misrepresentation, using a source as a springboard for WP:OR. We don't even have anything like that for regular RS (having a reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient reason for inclusion). This would turn it into an administrative nightmare. Volunteer Marek 21:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: - in terms of diffs to support my point #1 above, it's not so much diffs as examples. But let me try (this is going to be a bit of a work in progress, since I'm busy and there's a lot of examples here).
@ Maxim: User:Levivich below asks what content is being excluded on the basis of this restriction which could otherwise be included. Well, if Levivich actually looked at the edits under dispute, the answer to their quary would be easy to find. In this edit, the account "Bob Not Snob" removed 11k+ worth of text from the Witold Pilecki article. In their edit summary they explicitly claimed they were removing this material because of the ALPRS restriction. So what kind of content was removed because, according to Bob Not Snob accout, it "violated APLRS"?
And so on. It goes on for awhile. I mean, it's a pretty thorough gutting of the article, removing 11k of text, most of it non-controversial stuff like the fact that he went to a school and what units he served in. It's hard to see this as actually constructive. Rather it seems like someone using APLRS as an excuse to make an article look like crap because they don't like the subject. Like, you can't actually write "bad stuff" about Pilecki, because the guy was in fact a hero, and the sources - even the newer "revisionist" ones like Fleming and Cuber - are pretty clear on that, so instead you gut the article by removing basic, non-controversial, biographical info and try and make it look like shit. Or maybe it's WP:BAIT so that if someone reverts these edits as "non-controversial" you can use it as an excuse to file a spurious WP:AE report (and there's been a ton of those) and try to get someone sanctioned.
So yes, this restriction is VERY MUCH being used and abused to remove non-controversial info from article. Not a hypothetical. Volunteer Marek 02:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@ El C: Quote: " Other countries also espouse WP:FRINGE content, too. But a country, say, like Iran (twice the population of Poland), for example, does so to a far lesser extent" - El C, I'm sorry but this claim is completely bonkers. Comparing Poland's government or situation to that of Iran is what's "FRINGE" here. Wayyyy offf the charts. There certainly are serious issue with the current Polish government's actions but it's not even in the same league. Hell, according to Reporters without Borders, in terms of Freedom of Press, Poland ranks significantly above... Israel [211] (Poland # 62, Israel # 88, Iran # 173). I think a good chunk of the problem in this topic area is folks who bring in their preconceptions and prejudices to the editing (and sometimes administratin') without actually checking facts first (I can give more examples of this). Volunteer Marek 17:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
User:CaptainEek the rationale for your oppose is that " By limiting the possible remedies we can implement, we weaken ArbCom ". I'm sorry but are you suggesting that ArbCom should have unlimited power? There is a very good reason, as alluded to by User:Risker (former arb com member) why the committee's power - like any other rule making institution's in a functional society - is circumscribed. I think you're also flipping the narrative here. A more accurate way of describing the situation would be "by imposing remedies that have not traditionally been within our remit, we are making ArbCom even more powerful". I find this kind of seemingly power-hungry attitude in an arb deeply worrying. Volunteer Marek 15:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
User:CaptainEek - as others have pointed out, ruling on content, which is what this is, has traditionally been outside the scope of the committee's "power". This fundamentally changes that. If you want "more tools" then that's fine but these should be developed in agreement with what the committee's powers are suppose to be, rather than just expending the power.
In regard to Francois Robere's comment here. Unintentionally, this actually is an argument for the opposite view. First, it's not true that Pilecki being a "volunteer" is only uncontroversial in Poland. The book under discussion was written by a British author with help from American and Israeli researchers. The other book used in the article (confusingly, also called "Volunteer" but with a different subtitle) is by an Italian historian. Pilceki as "volunteer" is uncontroversial, period. Not "just in Poland" but among standard historical works. Yes, there's some revisionist "new history" articles which seem to pull back at that view somewhat but it's those articles that are - because they are new that ... maybe not "FRINGE" but non-mainstream. Likewise, FR also claims " What you don't see is the long list of blogs, websites, SPS, politicians, and other unqualified sources which would've been fought for under RS". Nah. This is some version of WP:CRYSTALBALLing. In fact when these sources exist, they are removed on straight forward grounds and nobody objects. The controversy really IS about sources like the Volunteer book. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I will give an example from another area. In the Raoul Wallenberg article it was previously claimed that Wallenberg saved 100,000 Jews. This claim is made in many popular works that would ordinarily qualify as WP:RS, such as New York Times, [212] [213] popular books [214] [215], and a resolution that passed US Congress. [216] But peer reviewed scholarship disputes this claim, saying the actual number of people saved was <10,000. If popular sources are given equal weight as academic sources, our article will end up saying something that's factually incorrect. (I think this kind of mythification is especially common when someone is considered a "hero"). In the Hungary topic area, such a requirement isn't formally necessary because no one has been trying to override the academic sources with popular ones; however, if that started to happen I would support a sourcing restriction there as well. Because in the Poland area there are many examples of editors trying to use deficient sources to trump peer-reviewed ones, (see above) it is necessary to restrict to WP:SCHOLARSHIP only for claims about what actually happened in the past. ( t · c) buidhe 19:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
This entire remedy should be revoked as unnecessary. First, regarding issue #2, no, it is not necessary, nor was it ever so. WP:RSN exists, is active, and was never swamped with discussions of works related to this topic area. Nor was there any general RfC on this or such. While the ArbCom finding did say "RSN and talk page RfCs have often failed to settle these questions", unfortunately no data or justification for this conclusion were ever indicated, nor was I able to find even a single party making such a claim at the Evidence and Workshop page, where instead, several RSN/RfC discussions were linked - and described as having successfully resolved the issues raised (generally concluding that several sources were unreliable). The problem was thus solved without the need for any extra remedies. Existing policies (RS, REDFLAG, FRINGE, UNDUE, etc.) work well enough and ArbCom should have simply reminded us of them; there was no need to "reinvent the wheel".
Second, regarding issue #1, I do have serious concerns about whether it is ArbCom's (or consequently's AE's) role to judge what sources are acceptable. I am afraid that ArbCom reached too far and this is causing major problems, many more than it attempted to solve. It is in fact encouraging disruption in the topic area (instead of preventing it), empowering disruptive socks, and scaring away established content creators. Proof below.
What the remedy has caused is that sources perfectly acceptable in every other area of the project are being challenged, with editors increasingly bypassing RSN/RfC and just claiming 'they violate my view of what academically focused' means. Consider the former FA Witold Pilecki, where a new account (registered just when the last ArbCom was ending...) not previously active in this TA suddenly appeared and effectively gutted the article, removing about half of the content with the edit summary "After discussion, WP:APLRS" (and did so again here). First, the removed content was uncontroversial. Second, the removed sources included the recent, award-winning, first-ever, English-language monograph (biography) of the subject, written by a respected journalist (aided by numerous scholars), published by a HarperCollins/CustomHouse which is a "reputable publisher" (wording from APLRS itself!), a book which received many positive reviews ( The Economist, WSJ, etc.), including by scholars, and which would be acceptable for any other topic area (my reading of the RSN discussion on this book is 'reliable, but may or may not meet APLRS, depending on what one understands by "academically focused"). Sigh. While this is a specific case, I use it to show that if such sources are not allowed, then we are forcing editors to either use hard to access and verify (and older) Polish-language sources or simply not to include helpful and uncontroversial information in the article (since no, there are better English-language sources). In either case, we are making it extremely difficult to write articles in Polish WWII history, simply because a few editors, most now retired or banned, have used some low-quality sources in the past (sources which are now considered unreliable, after discussions at RSN, and that nobody is restoring).
Further, while the Holocaust topic area is controversial it is no more so than many others (Isreal-Palestine, American politics, Balkans, Scientology, whatever). And most certainly, the remedy's broad scope - the entire Polish WWII area - is way too large, as it affects numerous articles on uncontroversial topics like minor battles, ships, or biographies, where next to no English sources exist, and due to poor digitalization of Polish literary and academic corpus up to date, history-focused newspaper or magazine articles are still very useful (of course, if contradicted by scholarly research, they should be discarded - but we don't need a remedy for this, RS already has this logic covered). Strictly interpreted, we should ban authors of totally uncontroversial articles like Defense of Katowice, Railway sabotage during World War II or SMS M85 and thousands of others, which heavily rely on mass-market books or educational websites or like. A lot of valuable articles about Polish military history can be sourced from books in Polish published by the Bellona Publishing House, which published numerous monographs on particular battles of the '39 invasion of Poland, and which often are the one and only monograph for said battle in existence; but Bellona's books are directed at the mass market of people interested in military history, so are they "academically focused"? A great source I've used over the past few years is Bellona's specialized encyclopedia Boje polskie 1939-1945: przewodnik encyklopedyczny, edited by historian Krzysztof Komorowski, but surely, encyclopedias are not 'academically focused'. My recent milhist A-class article, Battle of Hel, relies on this source heavily (as well as on another monograph from Bellona about the fighting on the Polish coast, Derdej's Westerplatte, Oksywie, Hel 1939) - is it ArbCom's intention to prevent such content from being written, and to punish editors like myself for writing it? Oh, and just in case someone thinks we can limit the damage by narrowing the scope to the Holocaust, you do realize we often use, among others, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum webpages, like its Holocaust Encyclopedia, as a source? For me, it is a much less "academically focused" source than the mentioned book from HarperCollins (for example, the book has endnotes, which USHMM's pages usually do not). The remedy, which was intended to discourage fringe, red-flag claims, threatens to lay waste to the entire topic area. This was already mentioned during previous requests for clarification by MILHIST editors like Nick-D here, Peacemaker67 here, Nigel_Ish here, Nug here, as well as former arbitrator DGG here, just to name a few, and what was feared a year ago is happening right now.
This is all compounded by the threat of being reported to AE for simply adding a book one did not realize came from a non-academic publisher (assuming that they are not allowed since the remedy does clearly allow "reputable publishers"). In other words, this encourages disruptive editors to create throw-away accounts which just need to meet 500/30 and then they can report established editors they have a grudge against to AE for using a source that may or may not meet the fuzzy definition of "academically focused". Doesn't work? Create a new sock, rinse and repeat. The sock wins if it manages to get a single ruling in its favor (which ruins the reputation of the established editors for years, and likely topic bans them too), or if the targeted editors give up and leave the topic arena. Win-win for disruption, lose-lose for the encyclopedia.
The current remedy creates an unfair burden on the editors in this topic area. It does so by creating a chilling effect with the threat of 'if you use a source that is accepted anywhere else you may be reported to AE and topic banned or worse". It discourages experienced editors to write about Polish-Jewish WWII relations or even Polish WWII history in general which is obviously bad for the project (see comments here) and encourages aggressive socking (creation of throw-away accounts to add possibly problematic sources or reporting established editors to AE).
Lastly, re #3. If the remedy is retained, ArbCom needs to clarify what the term 'academically focused' it invented (or adopted from following its invention by a single admin) means (and good luck with that...). The recent RSN discussion has shown that many editors disagree on this, which is compounded by the fact that many participants are not academics and make claims like 'narrative style means the work cannot be academically focused' which is wrong ( narrative ethnography is an academically recognized style of writing). In the end, I strongly recommend that discussion of sources should be left to RSN, not to few well-meaning admins who, while experts on Wikipedia, are not always experts on things like 'what is academic' or not. ArbCom and AE are overworked already, those venues don't need broader competencies and increasing workload that comes with them (like this very request for clarification, third in the series about that particular remedy). RSN has been and still is perfectly capable of weeding out FRINGE sources and reminding people about REDFLAG, UNDUE, and relevant policies. We don't need the threat of 'a sock will bring you to AE' hanging over people who want to use an in-depth monograph, the only one in existence for its subject, just published by a non-academic publisher, or edit an uncontroversial article about a German minelayer which sunk off the coast of Poland in '39 referencing Jane's Fighting Ships or a book by Steven Zaloga/ Osprey Publishing, for pity's sake. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Responding to Piotrus' ping. I am on the record in the original discussion (linked in Piotrus' contribution alongside my username) as opposing, as a matter of principle, the incursion of ArbCom into content issues which this remedy represents. It IS a content issue, and we have processes for dealing with them that don't involve ArbCom. The remedy should be vacated until and unless ArbCom's scope is widened to include content as well as conduct issues. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I think sourcing restriction is a very good idea, but this tool sometimes may be harmful. The core problem here is an indiscriminate approach. According to WP:APLRS, the whole WWII period is covered, be it a history of some small Polish town, or a technical article about Polish tanks. Is it needed? Of course, it is totally redundant. And "Polish" users quite legitimately object to that. However, there is one aspect that really requires our attention: Polish-Jewish relations during WWII. Social processes in modern Poland lead to resurrection of nationalist myths, and many Polish sources describe the WWII events at somewhat different angle that Western sources do. That is especially true for newspapers, blogs, popular web sites and other sources that are seen as marginally acceptable per our content policy. Normally, we allow that type sources, but in this situation, the abundance of that type sources and high activity of "Polish" editors (I use quotation marks, because I speak about their POV, not nationality) creates a situation when the description of Polish-Jewish relations during WWII in English Wikipedia differs considerably from what majority of scholarly sources write. During the discussion of the Antisemitism in Poland case, I made a post that drawn attention of professional US historians and journalists. They contacted me, and they expressed a concern about English Wikipedia bias. In connection to that, I think it is absolutely correct to keep the restrictions, because they deprive POV pushers of the main tool: their sources.
Moreover, I propose to think about sourcing restrictions as a universal tool for extinguishing edit wars. Usually, high quality sources use more cautious wording and factually correct statement, so if only top quality sources are used by both parties, that decrease the tension. According to my experience, the better sources some user uses, the more they are prone to arguments, and the reasier to reach a consensus.
There is one problem with this approach: these sourcing restrictions may be used for gaming the system (reporting a user who made an innocent edit using questionable source). I propose to think how to amend these restrictions to minimize a possibility of gaming. One possibility is to remove restrictions from any content that is not related to Polish-Jewish relationships.
With regard to the arguments about "content disputes", I have a question: what criteria discriminate cautious, experienced and polite POV-pusher from a user who is involved in a long but sincere content dispute? I think it is totally impossible to draw such a line without a careful analysis of arguments and sources. According to my experience, experienced POV-pushers are totally invisible for AE admins, and that fundamental reason is that AE admins have no necessary knowledge and time to carefully analyse the evidences, each or which, taken separately, look totally innocent.
With regard to User:Girth Summit's questions #1 - 3, my opinion is as follows:
1. Sourcing restrictions may be a better idea than topic bans. First, all sanctions are supposed to be more preventive than punitive, and most disruption is associated with usage of poor sources (it is hard to edit disruptively using only academically focused sources). Second, if a disruptive user has to use only good sources, that will requite more efforts to obtain them and read. In addition, it increase one's educational level, and may lead to correction of their POV. I am telling that based on my own experience.
2. The remedy may perfectly prevent disruption in many cases. And I see no harm in that remedy for high importance history topics. I would say more: I de facto am writing Wikipedia articles using only academically focused sources (exceptions are very rare), and I don't think that self-imposed restriction negatively impacts my work.
3. To answer how these rules should be applied, let me first explain how I select "academically focused sources". I use the following procedure: (i) no googling (only the sources available at google scholar, jstor and few other specialised databases are acceptable); (ii) if a book or article is more than 2-3 years old and there is no citations, it should be avoided; (iii) journal impact factor must be taken into account; (iv) for books, check reviews at jstor and gscholars: no reviews or negative reviews are an indication of possible problems. As I already wrote elsewhere, this my approach described as quite adequate by Brendan Luyt, the scholar who is studying the mechanisms of improving Wikipedia credibility. How all of that can be applied to the Polish-Jewish area? I think, if some user expresses a concern about some source that does not meet the above criteria, it is better to remove it. If another party resists to that, they are supposed to prove the criteria i-iv are met. If they failed to do that and continue using the disputed source, a topic ban must follow.
The criterion i failed.
The criterion ii failed.
The criterion iv failed
The enforcement of these rules is straightforward. Before I describe the procedure, let me give the example when some user was accused of violating sourcing restriction in an incorrect way (and that is why the request was declined). Instead, a correct procedure should be as follows. The accusing user was supposed to:
In my opinion, this procedure can be easily implemented, and it will not require too much work from enforcing admins.
Last, but not least. The attempts to remove the sources that clearly meet the criteria "i - iv" should be considered equally serious violation, and it may be reported at AE too.
@ Maxim:@ BDD: We already have a policy saying that highly controversial topics require multiple high quality sources. If ArbCom answers "Yes" to the questions 1 and 2, that just confirms the obvious fact that the Holocaust in Poland is a highly controversial topic, and many claims about Polish-Jewish relations that challenge mainstream views (an that is exactly what happening now, when many Polish sources seem to contradict to what Western scholarly literature says) need to be supported by multiple high-quality sources. Therefore, the only value of the ArbCom's sourcing restrictions would be a clarification of criteria outlined in WP:REDFLAG. In connection to that, Maxim's explanation seems a really valuable response.
Maxim's interpretation seems very close to what I describe above, and to K.e.coffman's deinition. However, I still have some questions/comments:
To that, I would add the following. Many journals exist that have all traits of peer-reviewed journals, but that publish the works authored by a narrow local group of authors, who perform "peer-reviewing" of each other's works. Formally, they fit a definition of "peer-reviewed publication", but they may be totally marginal. As a rule, these journals have no impact factor (of an impact factor below 1), and the articles published there are not cited by the authors who do not belong to that group. Obviously, the quality of content of those journals can be very low, significantly lower than the quality of publications in mainstream newspapers. Meanwhile, your rule allows the former and forbids the latter. In my opinion, "peer-reviewed" articles published in low level journals (the journals with low or absent impact factor) should be allowed only if they have been cited by some other scholarly publication, and that reference contained no obvious criticism. With regard to the User:Nigel Ish's argument, I think all of that can be easily resolved by specifying that the above source restrictions are applicable only to potentially controversial claims (the claims that have been challenged by at least one user, who substantiated them with appropriate sources). We all are reasonable people, and we do not expect that a user who added a marginally acceptable source telling about technical details or combat history of some Polish warship may be reported to AE. I think, a procedure of source removal should be as follows: "I (user name) find the claim supported by the source X controversial, and it contradicts to commonly accepted views expressed in mainstream scholarly literature. I am removing the source X and request other users not to restore that information unless it is supported by multiple high quality sources (as defined by WP:REDFLAG and ArbCom's decision)". Obviously, a user who is removing non-controversial or purely technical information from the articles about Poland under a pretext that the sources are marginally acceptable can be accused of gaming a system. Therefore, I find Nigel Ish's argument somewhat artificial.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Maxim: What you say about REDFLAG is correct, however, can you please explain me something? The Holocaust in Poland, as well as the EE topic in general is under standard DS. Among other restrictions it means that all users who are active in those topics must meet expectations, including "to comply with all applicable policies and guidelines". WP:REDFLAG IS a part of our policy, and that means REDFLAG violations committed in ANY topic covered by DS can be reported at AE and, ideally, they must be treated as seriously as personal attacks or topic ban violations. REDFLAG is quite concrete, and in some aspects it is more rigorous than the restrictions that we are discussing here. It says exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, whereas the restrictions we are discussing do not contain the word "multiple". Had REDFLAG worked properly, this discussion as whole would not be needed, because ALL content that is a focus of hot debates is usually found in some single source (or a couple of sources) AND most sources are of borderline quality, which means they all could be eliminated per REDFLAG. But that usually does not happen, or it is achieved at a very high cost. Moreoever, I know no examples when some user was subjected to sanctions for the REDFLAG violation. Of course, I may be wrong (I am not reading all AE requests), but I am not familiar with such cases. I have a feeling that admins prefer to treat such type cases as "content disputes". That means the problem is probably not in DS themselves (it seems general DS are quite sufficient to prevent lion's share of disruption), but in their implementation. Maybe, instead of imposing new and new restrictions, it probably makes sense to think what can be done for proper implementation of existing restrictions? What if ArbCom issues an explanation that REDFLAG violations can and should be reported at AE, and admins should not treat such violations as "content disputes"?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 02:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I am very concerned about using newspaper sources and similar for factual claims. Still, at the same time, there is nothing wrong with using them to source uncontroversial matters about events that happened after the war, correct? At Witold Pilecki's article, for example, a new editor, invoking this remedy, eliminated nearly the whole of the section about his legacy [218], which initially concerned things like monuments erected or posthumous awards received after 1989. This is just one of many examples I can think of where this remedy is being severely abused. Instead of preventing the addition of fringe theories that are generally restrained by WP:RS anyway, it is used to justify removing relevant and uncontroversial content someone doesn't like. The very existence of WP:RSN tells that many years after WP:RS was adopted, we are still debating what "reliable" is. To invent a new term, "academically focused" is an absurdity. The community has difficulty handling "reliable" without burdening it with clarifying a new notion. And such an endeavor is impossible anyway. We could just call for the use of "very reliable" or "best quality" sources - all meaningless qualifications that invite subjective opinions like "this award is good enough" - "no, it is not" or "one review in a peer-reviewed source is enough"-"no, we need seven" or "the author needs to have a Ph.D."-"no, Ph.D. is not enough". He needs a Nobel Prize". And worst, the remedy means that the question of what is reliable is no longer discussed at RSN, where at least most editors are reasonably experienced with the concept of "reliability". Now we ask administrators at AE, many of whom are not content creators, nor academics, to make such a call. At first, I assumed this remedy might help, but now I realize it was a prescription for failure. It's a typical "good intention" that, in reality, is only useful for paving the proverbial hell. We need to bite this in the back. In the end, whether the remedy is helpful or not can be judged by looking at its impact. What sources did it exclude that otherwise would be allowed? Right now, I can only think of the recent case concerning the Volunteer (book). The book has been written in consultation with many professional historians, was published by a major publishing house, gained a notable award, and got a significant and overwhelmingly positive reception. Is this indeed a source the remedy was supposed to rule out? If the answer is no, then the remedy is broken. Last thought - I am pretty unsure whether that source (Volunteer book) is allowed or not - the RSN discussion reads like no consensus, so what's the default ruling here? Use it, get reported to AE, and see how the dice roll? And since the source is used to reference content, and if removed, said content could be too, per WP:V (which clearly states "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed"), how is this remedy, or any imaginable AE ruling based on it, not a verdict on content? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
There are two separate topics here: one is the role of arb com with respect to issues involving content. The other is how to determine what sources to use, with respect to either our general preference for academic content, or a community or other mandate to use only or preferentially academic content in a particular situation.
The present situation enables disruptive or frivolous editors and sock-puppets to report established editors, thereby potentially discouraging established editors from adding otherwise valid sources that could be questioned on flimsy or bogus grounds – grounds whose inadequacy may easily escape the body being appealed to.
The remedy posits the vague criterion of an "academically-focused" source, which has been described as showing "a superior research quality in the tradition of the best academics". Who determines what is "superior", "tradition", or "best"?
There are already satisfactory long-standing mechanisms in place to guide discussions about the appropriateness of sources, without our having to employ impracticable mechanisms.
Respectfully, Nihil novi ( talk) 07:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Blocked |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thank you Girth Summit of notifying me of this request that appears to be coming after Piotrus requested it. I am mostly uninvolved in this topic, and have become involved after a few discussions at RSN on dubious sources and APLRS. From my recent experience this topic is highly toxic, unwelcoming, and full of editors who are pushing the cult of the " doomed soldiers". These "doomed soldiers" were mostly bandits, common thieves, murderers, and in some cases mass murderers of minorities. The nationalist right pushes them because they were also anti-communist. The problem isn't limited to hate against Jewish minorities, Romuald Rajs is known as a mass murderer of Belarusian people, yet the article prior to cleanup presented a picture of him almost being innocent. I cleaned it using academic sources, yet some of this questionable content was returned afterwards. To give context to the present, Rajs is used as a symbol by haters in the east of Poland, his name is sprayed on the houses of Belarusian people living in Poland today to intimidate them. My experience has been that subpar sourcing isn't the only problem here, the greater problem is that specific editors are willing to argue that these subpar sources are acceptable. I don't think User:Paul Siebert calling them "Polish" is correct, as it isn't Polish in my eyes to do this, and some of them are not Polish. My Very Best Wishes made this recent edit in which he restored information sourced to Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza. This is an "anti-socialist" webpage or blog, that is right-wing extremist, and is not a reliable source for anything. He then posted on my talk page saying "I do not know Polish".
This specific group of editors shows up and make facetious arguements, on the level that black is white, regarding any source they consider furthers their cause. Using heroic myths as sources for " doomed soldiers" is flat out unacceptable. Maybe the committee should authorize sanctions against this group that is making repeated false arguments?
|
I am somewhat inexperienced in these matters, so I will remain in my place and keep it short. I think that the WP:RSN discussion shows that the language of the WP:APLRS rule is not detailled enough for a meaningful consensus to emerge. This is not surprising: people can’t even agree on the meaning of basic words, [1] let alone unusual terminology like this one, let alone when tensions run high. So I support Girth Summit’s 3rd proposition.-- JBchrch ( talk) 11:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Questions 1 and 2 seem like an obvious "yes". There is no sense in which the vexed issue of antisemitism in Poland is anywhere near calmed down yet. The remedy's sourcing requirement has materially improved the quality of these articles, but not the inflammatory nature of the constant disputes between the warring parties. Let's remember to separate the two. The continuing battle between the two factions does not mean that the remedies are unnecessary or ineffective.
Question 3 comes down to a subject-specific interpretation of WP:RS, and can normally be resolved by looking at the remedy in its entirety: 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. That normally includes any legitimate mainstream scholarship, and will exclude the kinds of books published by imprints owned by the author or some group of axe-grinders. In the case of the specific book at issue, it doesn't meet those criteria. Arguing about the interpretation of individual subclauses in isolation is akin to the Supreme Court's Solomonic opinions on the significance of the Oxford comma. That's not how Wikipedia works. Importantly, this should be the standard for any section of the encyclopaedia that aspires to be a record of fact. Articles on wrestling are a dead loss and RS long since left the building there, but this is an area where we can and should aspire to academic levels of rigour, and all this remedy does is codify what that means: a good Wikipedian would interpret RS as mandating exactly this level of sourcing in this area, and the remedy's principal effect is to rapidly close down pointless argument on marginal sources.
This is a common problem at
WP:RSN. "Is X reliable" usually makes sense only in the context of "reliable for what?". The source under discussion does not to meet the remedy's requirement for statement as fact, but that does not prejudge whether it can be discussed as a significant opinion. You may view it as an edge case, but, from the article on the book, Cyra argues that the book "should be considered as non-fiction literature"; that it is "only partly fictionalized"
, and
Michael Fleming [...] writes that the book is a hagiographic narrative that reinforces the myth about Pilecki volunteering to be imprisoned in Auschwitz, whereas he posits the more correct and neutral description of what happened was that "Pilecki was pressured to allow himself to be arrested in the hope of being sent to a camp"
. That's a textbook
WP:UNDUE/
WP:ATT question, even without the specific remedy at issue. The book's thesis should clearly not be taken as fact in Wikipedia's voice per the remedy, but the remedy and normal Wikipedia practice do not preclude inclusion as a significant opinion or debate, subject to consensus on framing. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources
. This seems like a significant viewpoint, at least in respect of Pilecki.
The best solution in my view would be a standard Wikipedia fudge: a paragraph wordsmithed collaboratively between the various editors which references the book and its status as a popular history with some acceptance and some dissent, with an RfC to determine any disputed wording. In the alternative, we should apply the rule of sticks, if necessary using narrowly targeted remedies such as page bans or reply limits to help people towards a more thoughtful and measured form of engagement, rather than the characteristic rapid-fire and rapidly-escalating rhetoric that is all too common in this area.
Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia - by design, we're going to represent the mainstream scholarly consensus. The sourcing expectation remedy delivers exactly that. Some editors don't like it, but that is very much the point: a remedy that everyone loves, is probably not a necessary remedy. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I have not been involved in the present discussion, but in recent months I have observed RFCs over whether or not
Poland should be listed as one of the Axis powers, whether or not
Poland should be listed as a successor state of Nazi Germany, and a number of other such discussions. It is clear from the direction of these discussions that, on English Wiki, at present, Poland's role in WW2 is the subject of dispute typically involving people expressing views typical of those expressed in a range of different Central/Eastern European countries, and not Poland alone. Polish nationalism is not the only nationalism that needs to be guarded against here.
Academics are not the only people concerned here, either, nor should their interests be artificially elevated over those of others beyond what their expertise and institution requires. They may be experts (or in many cases may not actually be experts on this specific topic per se) but they are not the only experts, and the assumption that they are automatically free of biases or more reliable than non-academic sources is not one that historically has always proved true. Academia includes many institutions that are highly susceptible to the influence of various governments, not least because they are often government-funded and depend on goodwill with governments for access. Any one following Chinese issues in recent years will be familiar with the growing problem of self-censorship in return for access amongst academics. Academics are also human beings and given to the same rivalries and conflicts that ordinary people are (to take one example from this particular space, it is apparent from a reading of their negative reviews of each other's work that
Anita Prazmowska and
Anna Cienciala had a rivalry of sorts).
It would be highly anomalous that in this particular area of discussion, in respect of one particular Eastern European country, sources that we would typically consider reliable sources on the subject (e.g., newspaper articles written by non-academic experts in reliable outlets, books written by reputable non-academic journalists/historians and published by reputable publishing houses) should be artificially subordinated to academic ones (which may not be from particularly reputable institutions). This remedy, if it is interpreted as requiring this, was clearly excessive, disproportionate, and wrong even on its own merits, and should be set aside. However, I don't believe it requires this. Either the decision should be rescinded or it should be amended to clarify that sources with an academic nexus are not automatically more reliable than independent non-academic sources, that editors still need to exercise judgement.
Therefore:
I don't edit very much in this topic area, but was pleased to read that there was a well-drafted Arbcom decision pertaining to sourcing on the subject. It is a good decision, it still is amply warranted, and was written with great specificity so that it does not mandate further clarification. Arbcom is not required to interpret clearly worded decisions for editors who don't like their wording. This discussion was warranted by use of the book The Volunteer, which is a readable journalistic account that does not in any way, shape or form meet the criteria you set. Your decision is not broke and there is nothing to fix. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree the answers to 1 and 2 are yes for the reasons others explained above. As for #3, the most important part of the source expectation is, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, separating out academic from non-academic (e.g. mainstream books and popular press). I've been working on User:Levivich/Tiers of reliability, ranking different classes of sources, which might be the start of an essay or info page that editors can refer to when discussing levels of reliability among different types of sources. If anyone is interested in expanding it or otherwise working on it, they're most welcome to edit the page. Levivich harass/ hound 17:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Before we consider loosening this source expectation, we should answer two questions:
And I don't mean hypothetically, I mean in reality, in past experience. There's a lot of people talking hypotheticals, but I see no actual examples of, for example, a source that was removed from an article under this source expectation that should not have been removed. Even in the case of The Volunteer, I ask, what facts do we need to source from that book, that we cannot source from other, academic books? (Ships, for example, have nothing to do with it. AFAIK, no one has ever used this source expectation to argue that we can't use something like Naval Institute Press to source an article about a ship.)
I believe that once we identify the "facts outside academic sources", that is, facts that cannot be sourced to academic sources and can only be sourced to non-academic sources, it'll become apparent that these non-academic sources are totally unnecessary, if not counterproductive ... or they're so minor/uncontroversial (like ship specs) that no one is using this source expectation to argue against them anyway.
I believe in this topic area, the only time people go to non-academic sources is when those sources conflict with academic sources, and they want to use the non-academic sources to make the conflict seem like there is no academic consensus, when in fact there is academic consensus, it's just that some non-academic sources don't agree with that consensus. In those cases, we should be presenting only the academic consensus; significant minority views are only significant if they're significant in academia. We all know that academic publications will identify both mainstream and significant minority views explicitly. To say, "Ah! But there's a book that says something different! It's a significant minority view!" is to mislead our readers, IMO. It's a type of OR, IMO.
The reason this expectation was put in place in the first place is because people were using non-academic sources to argue against academic sources, and to make academic consensus appear to be just one of a number of competing viewpoints. This is misleading to our readers. This rather widespread practice had to be proven at the arbcom case before this expectation was put in place. Please, let's not undo that based on editor's hypotheticals and speculation, let's look at how this has been used, on the ground, in practice, before we decide whether it needs to be changed.
Whenever people say, "well, sometimes you need to include a fact but it's not in the sources," I think to myself, "so how do you know we need to include the fact, if it's not in the sources?" It seems like that's "backwards editing": first figure out what you want to say, then find sources to back it up. We should be doing the opposite: first find the sources, then summarize them. If a fact is not in the sources, it shouldn't be in our article, either. And while there are always exceptions for minor details here and there, I don't believe this source expectation has ever been used to exclude minor or uncontroversial factual details. There's a big difference between using a non-academic source to fill in some minor gap, and using it to argue against academic sources.
For example, the question "was 'the volunteer' really a volunteer or was he assigned?" is not a minor uncontroversial detail; we should only be writing what academic sources say on that point; we shouldn't use non-academic sources, such as the book, The Volunteer.
If the problem on the ground is limited to the use of non-academic sources for non-controversial details (I do not believe this is actually what the problem on the ground is), then it might make sense to clarify the expectation to say that it's OK to use high-quality but not-strictly-academic sources (like Naval Institute Press) for non-controversial details (like the technical specs of a battleship). But before we change anything, please identify the problem on the ground, in practice; don't change this based on hypotheticals.
And before anyone says anything, yeah, I know arbcom can't decide content disputes. But it can decide if any content disputes have arisen (is the current source expectation actually getting in the way of anything?), and what they were about (mainstream v. significant minority viewpoints, or minor/uncontroversial details like ship specs?). Levivich harass/ hound 18:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The relevant topic area here is Holocaust in Poland. That's a topic for which only academic-focused sources should be used. To the extent the source expectation is too broad, including all of WWII and thus things like ship specifications, the scope should be narrowed, rather than just ditching the whole thing. Levivich harass/ hound 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging all the participants! +1 to the #Alternative motion; seems like a best-of-both-worlds resolution. (Not to be confused with a The Best of Both Worlds resolution.) Levivich harass/ hound 20:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I align with the views expressed by DGG. But I will add Houston, we have a problem, and it is threatening NPOV. I totally agree that we must use high quality sources, and scholarly sources are unambiguously high on the list. But we must not forget that there are scholarly sources and books that reflect opposing views; therefore, we must exercise caution about eliminating other significant views that may not align with the most prevalent. Throughout history, scholarly views have been rejected because of strongly held views by some of our prominent leaders in science and medicine. See Bohr–Einstein debates. Keep in mind that our job is to provide all significant views, and allow our readers to explore the possibilities, conduct their own research, and form their own conclusions based on the material we've added per NPOV, and the cited sources we've provided. We should not limit them to a single POV if other views are also significant, regardless of our own personal opinions. Atsme 💬 📧 13:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Far too many words already, so I'll be brief: 1.Yes, 2.Yes, 3.Anything written on the subject by academic or other subject experts, in whatever format (academic book, popular book, journal article, magazine article, newspaper op-ed, interview, tweet, verified Facebook comment, etc.) should be considered to be an "academically-focused source". It's the expertise behind the words that's important, not the format in which the words appear. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't say as to whether a restriction in this vein should continue, but I do concur that it is not within ARBCOM's remit to be deciding such - they are making content decisions, just by the back door. Should they think the sanction should continue, then they should request the Community endorse it, in lieu of a formal rule change. Nuances within that, and expansion on clarification are well covered by the others, so I won't duplicate words Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@ CaptainEek: - this may be a bit of an ideological dispute that I suspect was argued all the way when BLP DS was made, but our disputes are either conduct or content oriented. Conduct goes to the conduct route, content the content route. I struggle to see how a change to required sourcing level is a conduct issue, so it must be a content route, and therefore outside ARBCOM's remit. At best, ARBCOM could authorise sanctions that would enforce a higher sourcing requirement but that the actual sourcing level would have to be determined by the Community. Play around with the sourcing levels and you could (if you wrote long-enough/tailored enough rules) functionally control content while still claiming it was under ARBCOM's remit - that isn't what's happening here, but it does to me seem to be in the same bucket. Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with El C that this was "one of the best and most important Arbitration decisions bar none"; with JzG that "this is an area where we can and should aspire to academic levels of rigour, and all this remedy does is codify what that means: a good Wikipedian would interpret RS as mandating exactly this level of sourcing in this area"; and with Coretheapple that the decision is "not broke and there is nothing to fix". SarahSV (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I object to the remedy because it’s a clear example of the creeping bureaucratization that we should be avoiding. While we all recognize the sensitivity of the topic area, the fact remains that there are already policies in place regarding sources, venues for discussing the reliability of sources, sanctions for deliberate misrepresentation of sources, etc. Moreover, the proposal gives bad-faith editors an additional tool with which to threaten their productive counterparts. ArbCom has generally stayed aloof from content disputes and should, in my view, continue to do so. — Biruitorul Talk 07:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I've said this before, but the problem is that the committee is trying to solve behaviour problems with a sourcing requirement, and a very vague one at that - we wouldn't be having this discussion if everyone was clear what "academically focused books" actually meant as can be seen by the discussion at RS/N that provoked this. While it is appropriate to expect high quality sources to be used for the nexus of the problem (i.e. the Holocaust in Poland, anti-Semitism in Poland and collaboration with the Germans), it is equally important (and perhaps even more so) that sources are used appropriately (i.e. is the best source for the fact being cited being used and has the source been used appropriately. It is also important to note that even peer-reviewed articles and other academically focussed works will have biases, or have been written to argue a point and even the best sources can make mistakes. Nigel Ish ( talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I entirely understand the sentiment and the need for protecting our content by focusing on academic sources. However, my concern is that specifically in Poland there are very few purely academically-focused presses. Some of those which, in theory, should be a paragon of scholarly effort, may be biased. Some others, even though they are commercial publishers, stay up to high scholarly standards. Books are tricky, but I'd say that books published by renown academics and peer-reviewed should be generally acceptable, irrespective of the publisher. We wouldn't want to exclude "The Penguin and the Leviathan: How Cooperation Triumphs over Self-Interest" by Yochai Benkler just because it was published by Penguin, right? Pundit| utter 08:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope you will bear with me as I have never commented on Wikipedia before. But the question before the arbitrators of what sources should be admissible, which has only recently come to my attention, is a very important one on which I would like to provide my thoughts-—which perhaps come from a perspective different than that of some of the other commentators.
The genius of Wikipedia comes from recognizing that crowd-sourcing is a highly effective (perhaps the most effective) way of reaching truth. But in order for this approach to work, the “crowd” must be wide. Limiting all sources on Wikipedia to “academically focused” or “peer reviewed” would be a grave mistake. It would be an even worse transgression, and a gross abandonment of Wikipedia’s purpose, to prejudicially impose such limit only in one topic area.
As a publisher of books in the subject area of Poland in World War II, I am acutely aware of the devastating long-term impact of postwar communist disinformation warfare, which even today colors international perception of Poland in the media and elsewhere—and indeed, including some of the discussion I see on this topic on Wikipedia.
Many of the problems with allowing only academically focused sources have been mentioned by others here. One of the most important to my mind is the fact that academic sources are by no means immune from personal bias or outside influence, including trends in research topics which are often dictated by available funding (which sometimes comes directly or indirectly from state actors with agendas). These dangers are more obvious in recent years, as academia has become more of a closed system tolerant of only certain viewpoints.
In addition, academic sources tend to be second-, third- or fourth-hand knowledge. They are highly dependent on the methodology by which the academic chose his/her sources and the scope of sources to which the academic had access—especially if, in a topic such as Poland in WWII, the academic is not multilingual. By the way, getting at the truth is one of the reasons why I like to publish firsthand contemporaneous accounts of events.
Peer review suffers from these same problems. Its unreliability was starkly illustrated by the recent retractions of Covid-related articles from the highly respected peer-reviewed journals Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine. The value of peer review in the academic social sciences is even more questionable, where one’s peers are likely to be subject to the same biases and influences, and where there is no replicable scientific data involved.
There are many, many useful and important non-academic sources, such as firsthand accounts, memoirs, documents, government reports or hearings, newspaper articles, ephemera, encyclopedias, museums, etc.—including trade books (in publishing, the term “mass market” refers to the small format paperbacks most commonly used for genre fiction).
Trade books can certainly constitute useful sources and should not be banned merely because of who published them or who buys them—for example, The Volunteer by Jack Fairweather, who is a highly respected researcher and journalist; or X, Y & Z: The Real Story of How Enigma Was Broken by Sir John Dermot Turing, nephew of famous Bletchley Park codebreaker Alan Turing, whose well-researched book focuses on the Polish mathematicians who first broke Enigma in 1932; or The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery by Captain Witold Pilecki, his most comprehensive report about his undercover mission at Auschwitz; or the 2018 edition of Fighting Auschwitz by Jozef Garlinski with an introduction by Prof. Antony Polonsky (Chief Historian of the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, and Emeritus Professor of Holocaust Studies at Brandeis University), who says “It remains the definitive study of the topic and has not been superseded by more recent scholarship.” Other examples are the Osprey series of books on military history, the Jane’s guides, and there are literally thousands of others that can serve as useful sources.
I truly value the efforts and intent of the arbitrators and editors to provide to the maximum extent possible "truth" on all the various topics covered in Wikipedia. But I believe that if there are questions or doubts, the remedy is not to ban the information, but to provide a reference to a competing source and let the reader decide for him/herself. -- Tataqp ( talk) 20:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The remedy is way too broad and unnecessary, and it prevents usage of perfectly reliable sources for uncontroversial topics which form majority of this case. -- evrik ( talk) 05:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am a prolific Wikipedia reader but not a Wikipedia contributor. I enjoy learning about Polish history and manage a social media account that shares Polish history tidbits. There is very little online about niche subjects of Polish history in English, and most of it is on Wikipedia. Articles on individual ships, skirmishes, and Polish people who lived during WW2 are appreciated reading material that may simply not be on the radar of English language academics. Facts like a ship being sunk on a certain date, or a person being born in a certain town, should be fine using sources that aren’t up to the standards of hardcore academia. If more authoritative sources prove these wrong, all more power to the editors. The current strict standard applied to over a decade of history seems very harsh. I hope this arbitration leads to more interesting reading and higher quality curation, while avoiding collateral damage. AK at Aquila Polonica Publishing ( talk) 20:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit flabbergasted by the original remedy - it really does venture far too deeply into content control, and isn't even appropriate for the nature of the topic area. Irrespective of my thoughts about the original motion, though, Maxim's motion is entirely correct. When a remedy is no longer materially relevant, it should be removed. Risker ( talk) 23:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It is reasonable to pass a remedy that sanctions a specific editor for inappropriate use of reference sources, or for otherwise editing inappropriately in a topic area; that is already considered to be disruptive behaviour, and it is the behaviour you are sanctioning. It is reasonable to pass a remedy that permits independent administrators to assess the level of disruption caused by the editing practices of a particular editor; we call that discretionary sanctions. Both of them require evidence as to the disruption, specific to the sanction. But MEDRS is a creature of the community, as is the assessment of reliability of sources and the appropriateness of the sources used. The committee does not have authority over these areas of the project. At most, it can recommend or encourage the community to consider developing certain guidelines or policies related to sourcing of content. An editor using a non-academic reference as a source of information for non-controversial matters or for matters that are not normally included in the scope of academic references is not being disruptive. The result can be (and in a few cases, has been) gutting articles because there are no academic references that discuss non-controversial or even comparatively trivial statements in the article. Please keep the intentionally limited scope of Arbcom in mind; one might consider it the "Human Resources Department" of the project when it comes to discipline. Risker ( talk) 05:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't have much if any involvement in this (blame the AE thread), but WP:BESTSOURCES already seems to deal with the issue of controversial information - and that is also entirely common sense and honest academic practice (no serious academic would cite a newspaper article as a factual source for serious academic writing). Agree with CaptainEek that holding parts of the encyclopedia to stricter standards is not unprecedented (MEDRS is the obvious example), and should be an option in any areas which have shown to be prone to disruption (and history, as we all know, is prone to nationalist propaganda of all kinds, including revisionism and manipulation; so we should absolutely encourage more respectable sources); and further note that challenging high quality sources with poorer ones (and the popular press is okay for non-controversial facts, but journalists are not exactly subject matter experts with all the credentials and experience to provide an accurate picture of more difficult historiographical issues) is indeed a disruptive, conduct issue and not just a mere content issue. If the restrictions are doing good and preventing disruption and POV pushing (in what appears to be an extremely tense area), they should stay. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I've only tangentially followed this dispute, but the crux of the matter seems to be that "academic" does not work as a useful way to distinguish between good and bad sources (at least in this topic area). MEDRS works (when correctly applied) because it reliably separates good sources from bad ones (and is treated as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule). This, or any similar restriction, that excludes many good sources and/or allows many bad ones is going to cause more problems than it solves, especially if it says "X is good Y is bad" rather than "good sources generally do X, sources that do Y are bad more often than not". Thryduulf ( talk) 14:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Assuming that the alternative motion passes: since the sanction describes itself as an expansion of a page-level DS at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, it may be worthwhile to clarify the status of that specific page - whether the original page-level sanction will remain in effect, whether it is being replaced by the "reliable-source consensus required" sanction, whether it is being vacated with the others, or something else. I think it's implied that the original sanction will remain, but I don't know if others will think the same way.
Actually, it might also make sense to consider whether the pages at the nexus of the original dispute should be presumed to retain it as a page-level restriction, which could then be appealed at WP:AE as necessary. The idea would be to prevent the issues that led to the sanction from reoccurring, unless the Committee's opinion is that a renewal of the disruption on those pages is unlikely. Sunrise ( talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
I wonder if a more usable remedy would be along the lines of "[requiring] high-quality sources for exceptional claims for articles related to anti-Semitism and Jewish history in Poland, specifically in relation to World War II and The Holocaust, as well as on biographies of scholars studying these topics" that is enforceable via AE. This would: (1) narrow the scope as to not sweep up everything to do with Polish history in WWII; (b) not require specific types of sources within the topic area for material that is unlikely to be controversial; and (c) a reinforcement of the WP:V policy within the given topic area. Maxim(talk) 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is repealed.
of a superior research quality in the tradition of the best academics. That means lay authors are acceptable, as long as their work is well researched in an academic fashion. From there, it is up to the community to decide what sources are acceptable. This remedy ensures that the community errs on the side of more reliable over less reliable. Just as WP:MEDRS requires more stringent sourcing, so too does this dark and difficult topic which multiple governments and many political actors have a vested interest in manipulating. I can see amending the precise wording, or some sort of explanatory supplement to the remedy. But to repeal this remedy would be a definite failure on our part. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 05:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I take seriously the reasons that have been submitted for why this restriction needs to go, including it being hard to interpret, it being outside our scope of authority, and that it is hindering the creation of high quality in this topic area, but I don't know that this motion is the correct response. I am nervous about supporting this and not doing anything else given that, El C, the only uninvolved admin who we have that is currently working this area who has weighed in here (per the DS log) has stated that the restriction remains needed. I'm not sure I like the other options I can come up with better - doing a full case (we're not at at Palestinian/Israel levels of need from what I've seen) or coming up with some other motion (what would it be? I have no idea) - but I am a little nervous about just rescinding it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project(emphasis added). The authority to prohibit the addition of content is expressly denied to administrators when consensus for the edit exists, and for good reason: to declare otherwise would place the administrator's decision above community consensus on a matter affecting content. Because the original sourcing restriction did not allow editors to add non-academic sources, even with consensus, it was ultra vires. Now, ArbCom is not limited by the DS procedures when it adopts page restrictions directly. But after reading this discussion, it is my view that the sourcing restriction falls outside prudent limits that ArbCom should place on its own powers. This remedy categorically excludes many sources that the community deems generally reliable ( WP:IRS, WP:RS/P). Therefore, the remedy in its current form cannot stay. However, as many community members point out, the topic area is still the subject of significant ongoing disruption, so I would like to see this remedy replaced by something instead of simply vacated. I would be curious to hear how editors would view a "(strong) consensus required for addition of non-academic references" requirement. Further ideas are also welcome. I'll hold off on this motion, but if there are no good alternatives I think I will eventually have to vote for it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
" Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is repealed. However, administrators remain empowered to issue sanctions, including topic bans, to editors who disruptively edit by using biased, POV pushing and/or low quality sources"? The last part is taken from the FoF for the case. I'm kind of spitballing here but hopefully this would signal our support for administrators in this topic area to stop disruption while removing the blanket restriction across the topic area. I'm also not opposed to Kevin's consensus required for non-academic references piece though that doesn't address the "ArbCom is not empowered to pass this kind of remedy" concern. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on
articles all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, 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.
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is repealed, effective 30 days after the date of this motion. However, if a request for comment on sourcing requirements for articles related to Polish history during World War II (1933-45) is opened in that 30-day period, Remedy 5 will continue in effect until the request for comment is closed. If the request for comment reaches a consensus to restrict the use of certain sources, clear breaches of the restriction may be treated by administrators as disruptive editing and subject to discretionary sanctions enforcement.
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: When a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question."
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question.
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or through a discussion at the
Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction.
The Arbitration Committee invites the community to hold a request for comment on sourcing requirements for articles related to Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. If the request for comment reaches a consensus to restrict the use of certain sources, clear breaches of the restriction may be treated by administrators as disruptive editing and subject to discretionary sanctions enforcement. When the request for comment is closed, or if no request for comment is opened within 30 days of this motion, Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") will cease to have effect.
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is repealed, effective 30 days after the date of this motion. However, if a request for comment on sourcing requirements for articles related to Polish history during World War II (1933-45) is opened in that period, Remedy 5 will continue in effect until the request for comment is closed. If the request for comment reaches a consensus to restrict the use of certain sources, clear breaches of the restriction may be treated by administrators as disruptive editing and subject to discretionary sanctions enforcement.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
- Extended confirmed restriction
The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:
- A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
- 1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
- 2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
- B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
- C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
- D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.
Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:
- Extended confirmed restriction
7) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.
Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:
Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.
Enacted - SQL Query Me! 10:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.@ CaptainEek and Casliber: Hope this is fine! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.Remedy 5 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 says:
Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.This motion is just housekeeping. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Wugapodes at 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The 30/500 remedy of the antisemitism in Poland case is unclear on whether it applies to namespaces beyond (Article). The decision states that non-EC editors are prohibited from editing articles
and further states that non-EC editors may use the Talk: namespace
to discuss improvements. However, this differs from the other 30/500 scheme imposed by ARBPIA. In that topic area, editors are prohibited from editing content
and editing talk pages is listed as an explicit exception to the general prohibition in all namespaces. This inconsistency between the two has led to confusion among administrators and editors. The Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella reverted a non-EC editor who was editing antisemitism in Poland content in project space. The editors stated that those reverts were not edit warring as they enforced the 30/500 restriction which they believe applied to all namespaces. Ymblanter blocked them both on the basis of the remedy text, believing that the 30/500 remedy applied only to mainspace. Clarification on this point would help avoid future miscommunications and conflict. 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On pages with related contentto something like
On secondary pages with related contentor change your defined term from "secondary" to "pages with related content". — Wug· a·po·des 22:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I am under understanding that if the arbitration decision says "article" and not "page" it means "article" and not "page". Which makes perfect sense to me because for example talk pages should not be included in any case, and concerning Wikipedia namespace, the pages there do not obey the same policies as the articles, for example WP:V or WP:N do not apply to the same extent. It is of course up to ArbCom to modify the wording if they wish to do so.
To correct the original statement, GCB reverted a long-standing editor; VM first edit was a revert of a long-standing editor (although the edit they were reverting stood on the page for about two years); the other three reverts were indeed of a non-extended-confirmed editor.
What we also need is to clarify, similarly to PIA situation, is whether new accounts may edit articles which are not primarily related to antisemitism in Poland but contain some pieces or even sentences related to antisemitism in Poland. My proposal would be to state that new accounts are not allowed to make any edits to any articles if the edit is related to antisemitism in Poland, but I believe it is not currently stated clearly in the remedy.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 05:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Note that I discussed the above interpretation of the remedy with VM after I blocked them (it was then called wikilawyering), and also in the ANI thred where it was completely ignored.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Ncmvocalist: I did warn VM before blocking, and we had a discussion, it is just the discussion did not happen to be productive.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
In addition to the wording at ARBPIA, the WP:GS page which references the general 30/500 rule also says "content". Full text for completeness [222]:
Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce these remedies on article creations.
I bolded the parts where there's some difference. This means that the restriction on non-confirmed users editing "AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions" are EVEN MORE stringent than regular articles and article talk pages. One recurring problem since this amendment was put in place is of masses of sock puppet showing up to RfCs and brigading them. And making exceptions for RfCs does create a loophole - a friend of a banned user creates an RfC, then the banned user swarms the RfC with socks and it's really a lot of effort to file SPIs on all of them.
Of course, aligning the Poland-specific restriction with WP:GS and ARBPIA would also eliminate the sort of confusion that led to the recent drama. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ L235: and @ SoWhy: - the problem is that there has indeed been disruption by sock puppets outside of article space, either on WP boards (RSN, BLP) or via RfCs. I can compile a more exhaustive list from the past few months (or longer) but that will take time. But even very recently we've had an Icewhiz sock puppet VikingDrummer intervene in SPI to defend other sock puppets start RfC which was then flooded with other brand new accounts, use article talk pages to make personal attacks, vote in RfC. Another sockpuppet/blocked account User:Potugin, tried to use ANI to get their way and to agitate for sanctions, vote in an RfC, and again jumped into an ANI discussion to agitate for sanctions. This is just tip of the iceberg, just from the most recent past. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If you keep this loophole (restricting the prohibition only to articles) then I can 100% guarantee you that this issue will come up again and again. You leave a loophole, unscrupulous banned editors will exploit it. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, what is "APL"? (and vandalism has always been a daily occurrence) Volunteer Marek 16:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, what GCB said. The number of sock puppets in this area is so high that it's simply unreasonable to ask editors to constantly be filling out SPI reports (last one I filed took me 3 hours, which at my usual billing rates would be... way too much. You include the compensation for stress and we talking serious financial losses). The original restriction did work though! The disruption of articles themselves has gone way down. The area has calmed down. But unfortunately there is a kind of a "squeeze the balloon in one place, it gets bigger in another" effect here, as some of the sock puppetry has moved from articles to policy pages, noticeboards and talk pages (via RfCs in particular), as well as some AfDs (though I don't pay that much attention to that last category). Since the restriction was successful at solving (albeit partially) the initial problem, extending it - in line with how the restriction is usually interpreted and how it's applied in other topic areas - makes a lot of sense. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also what Zero0000 said. We know this works from other topic areas. So do it. (seriously we do so many things which don't work or we don't know if they work and here we have one that does work ... yet we're hesitant? Are we afraid of actually solving our problems?) Volunteer Marek 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: two of the three ARCAs in this TA had to do with persistent sock puppetry, right? That is where the disruption in this topic area is originating and an ArbCom case won’t do anything at all to resolve that since you can’t have a case with sock puppets as parties. What would help matters is streamlining this restriction to match up with similar ones in other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I do feel it necessary to note that Francois Robere’s comments regarding “review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action” constitute a WP:IBAN violation since one of the editors Ymblanter blocked is User:GizzyCatBella whom FR has an interaction ban with. For a very good reason. In fact, FR just came off a 48 hour block for violating that IBAN [223]. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that FR is agitating here for someone to overrule the consensus at ANI which was highly critical of Ymblanter’s block of GCB and myself. This is also the proper context in which to understand FR’s “suggestions” for a new (unnecessary) arb case. Volunteer Marek 21:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I really want to encourage everyone to focus on the actual request for clarification - does the restriction cover non-article space, and if no, should it - rather than going off on tangents. In particular, there is little sense in arguing HERE about whether Ymblanter's blocks were legit or not. They weren't, but he's unblocked, however reluctantly, so as long as he doesn't keep trying to persue the matter, I'm happy to let this one go. Volunteer Marek 07:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
due to enormous sock puppet activity in these sectors. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, and noticeboard discussions
This is a great example since it just happens as we speak. [224]. Brand new account, reactivated after 2 years of inactivity, shows up in support of the banned user's entry. Please note that this is a daily occurrence in this topic area. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC) And of course, there is a correlation in other articles between the short-lived account and the banned user [225] but who has the energy to file an SPI report every day? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Here you are again, that's the same talk page one day later [226]. This is occurring continuously, every day, on multiple articles. I can present a comprehensive list of talk pages, RfC, etc. affected by newly created accounts/proxy generated IP’s. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(Collapsed outdated below)
Extended content
|
---|
- GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC) |
Updating (as of August 27th) - I can see that this is on hold, but I'm just letting you know that distress from the brand new accounts in the topic area continues [227], [228]. Nothing changed. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC) See this also - [229] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The current rules for ARBPIA are working pretty well, so replicating them here would be a safe and effective option. Zero talk 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I'm reminded by looking at the last case that I have better things to do with my life than participate in this. Sorry, I withdraw my statements. Levivich 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Levi that there's no need to "dice it up." If unexperienced editors and socks are a major problem on these articles, they aren't likely to be a net positive in the other namespaces. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 04:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On one hand I am hesitant to deny 'free speech' to anyone, on the other I can confirm that Icewhiz's associated LTAs have been active in some non-article spaces. This started already in 2019 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death (an AFD of a rant written by Icewhiz; just look at it - almost all 'votes' are crossed out, socks everywhere). This pattern continues in AfDs, RfCs and like in this TA - above normal numbers of SPAs, IPs, and like are a norm. However, per my 'free speech' concerns, I'd suggest not removing them, but instead, votes by such accounts should be clearly labeled in some fashion. Maybe revise the cited remedy to note that votes and comments by such editors in this topic area should be considered as having less weight than those of normal editors, and encourage usage of templates such as {{ Single-purpose account}}. {{ csp}}, {{ csm}}, {{ Afdnewuser}} and like. Could also consider creating a new template to be used in this topic area instead of the new linked, linking to the revised remedy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Since the WP:GS page has been brought up a few times now at ANI and in SoWhy's comment: that text was only meant to be descriptive of what ArbCom's general remedies are. It was taken from the ARBPIA remedy, I believe. You can parse it for this context by taking "articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism" to be the "given area of conflict". Otherwise, that text has no enforcement basis at all. There are three 500/30s authorised here:
There exists no authorisation that uses the informational text at WP:GS. (I proposed removing it last year to avoid confusion but that didn't gain consensus.)
As for the scope of the remedy, I feel like it's little things like this that makes the general sanctions regimes appear complicated. This is the only one of three authorisations to limit to "mainspace". I think extending the scope for simplicity's sake is worth it alone, given that the covered content in other namespaces is almost certainly very low (both relatively and absolutely). The collateral damage will also be insignificant compared to the collateral damage already caused by having this restriction in mainspace.
I do believe VM thought in good faith it applied to the given page, given that all other remedies are across all namespaces, and a plausible explanation is that ArbCom made the common error of using "articles" and "pages" as synonyms. It's very much possible the distinction wasn't even noticed on a first read - I certainly didn't notice it on my first read, but then again I just skimmed over it as I presumed it was identical to the boilerplate text elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 09:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
|
If ArbCom wishes to maintain its relevancy and keep the Wikipedia community active and vibrant, it needs to stop dealing in minutae and start putting its foot down. APL is bleeding editors and admins, people complain about their blood pressure and mental health (!), vandalism is an almost daily occurrence, and you're arguing about namespaces? What are you, the IETF? There are so many things that you could do to fix this, and instead you're putting your finger in the dike. François Robere ( talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If by PIA4 - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland is meant, one reason I did not participate much was I was moving. Quite literally, we were physically moving during the time period. But a much bigger reason I didn't do much with it was the sheer ... tiredness that the entire topic area (of Polish/Jewish history both before and during the Holocaust and the reprecussions of that history in the modern era) elicits in me. It's a cesspit of battleground behavior and the previous attempts (including that case and all the "clarifications" since from arbcom) have failed miserably. About a year ago, it got so bad, I just totally removed ALL the articles in the topic area from my watchlist, except for the main Holocaust article. As I have many of the English sources that could be used in this area, the fact that I've been driven off from it by the behavior of most of the editors in the area should be quite telling. The reason why the arbcom case didn't work was that there was no way within the word limits to possibly present enough evidence to persuade any arbs, and it's not worth the bother quite honestly. Right now, what you have is basically a bunch of editors who blame all problems on Icewhiz while spending what seems like all their time battling the "hordes of sockpuppets" of Icewhiz as well as trying to eliminate all sign of letting any of his edits (or any edits that they think MIGHT be his or might be inspired by him or ... you get the picture) remain in the encyclopedia. Until folks wake up to the tag teaming and battleground behavior and grasp the nettle to eliminate the folks doing that behavior, it's never going to get better. The inability to recognize that there are a large number of sources that are so hopelessly biased that they shouldn't be used ... is just the icing on the cake. Ealdgyth ( talk) 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
François Robere, POV is fine, APL is fine, even TP is fine, I suppose. But TA? Comeon! It took me minutes of hard drinking to figure out it meant topic area. Now, granted I'm much slower than your average reviewer of the ARCA (praise be), but for the love of Cow Man, please just write "topic area" plainly. Jeez, I'm trying to be stealth over here. El_C 01:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
This is just about the 500/30 rule
I understand wanting a standard, but if arbcom is going to use numbers to describe trustworthiness, then the numbers in question shouldn't be higher than the trust needed to vote each of you into arbcom:
I mean really, 500 mainspace edits are what's required to be an arbitrator. Are we really wanting to set the bar that high?
As for 30, arbcom voters need roughly 60 days. I wouldn't mind if this were moved up to that. - jc37 19:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I reiterate RGloucester's original comment here too as it is relevant to the incident and clarification. The remedy was clear on its own, but I think the "...exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..." line cited by Volunteer Marek was not unreasonable to cite as an exception either. Volunteer Marek was clear about this interpretation at the outset and that misunderstanding should have been addressed first by the admin. An unequivocal warning was not issued (as I said at the ANI) or more ideally, a discussion that was more conducive to calming a frustrated editor down and moving forward. That is why the community would have reversed the block in any case. I have previously seen AE admin threaten to stop their work if an action isn't supported, but thankfully Ymblanter will not be one of them - in that they behave maturely, even in the face of serious health issues during admin actions, by swiftly taking steps to address the issues caused by the blocks. There is a separate matter raised by Piotrus which Ymblanter hasn't yet addressed at the ANI, but they propose to deal with that after this ARCA is completed.
That just leaves one separate issue here - the wisdom of this 'tailored' rule that came into effect last year. I actually share the reservations held for implementing the rule at all. In spite of this, if one concludes that a rule is required, @ Worm That Turned and SoWhy: I don't understand how last year's rule is somehow helpful in alleviating the actual reservations. If the restrictions exist for the article space, why should the participation be allowed on project pages that are not in the talk space? AFAIK, new legitimate accounts will start out in the main space. Additionally, if we take care to remember why DS (a type of GS) was streamlined by AC in the first place, I think we can appreciate why a streamlined 500/30 rule (another type of GS) is more effective in resolving the underlying issues sought to be addressed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 20:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The amentment says: methods noted in paragraph b)
- What is "paragraph b)"?
Lembit Staan (
talk) 01:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Go with Arbpia and 500/30, it works, more or less (if I was going to change 500/30 it would be upwards). Selfstudier ( talk) 11:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The motion needs proof-reading - it includes "Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b)
" but there is no paragraph marked "b)" (indeed, paragraphs are not individually identified in any way).
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the EC omnibus motion, I suggest the following copy edits:
− | + | New editors are restricted from editing directly in topic areas specified by the Committee. All IP editors and users who are not [[WP:XC|extended confirmed]] are prohibited from editing within the designated area. For primary articles related to the topic area, this prohibition is preferably enforced using extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. For secondary pages with related content, or for primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the extended confirmed restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.{{pb}}The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:{{ordered list
|1=
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods mentioned in the prior paragraph. This exception does not apply to any other namespace.
|2=
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.{{pb}}For the purposes of this restriction, "primary" shall mean pages on which a majority of the content is within the conflict area. "Secondary" articles are those with less than a majority of their content related to the conflict area. Pages which mention the conflict area in mere passing, and whose content is not controversial, should ''not'' be considered to be within the scope of these restrictions.}}
|
I did not include the prohibition on requests for comments, requested moves, or other "internal project discussions" occurring on an article talk page, as I'm not clear on the practicality of allowing "constructive comments" in a non-RfC discussion but disallowing them for an RfC, in a discussion on an article title versus a requested move, and so forth. isaacl ( talk) 21:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I also urge the arbitrators not to use a term such as "ECP DS". Authorization for individual administrators to devise sanctions of their own invention is distinct from a defined page editing restriction. isaacl ( talk) 21:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding WormThatTurned's suggestion to drop the terms "primary" and "secondary": I agree that when feasible, it's better to avoid having definitions to argue over. I do think, though, that it should be made clear that the editing restriction can apply to specific sections of an article and not only to entire articles. isaacl ( talk) 14:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the "why 500/30" question above, the reality is that these topic areas see a lot more focused, determined WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT behavior than ArbCom elections. Yes, ArbCom elections are in theory more momentous, but topic areas that run along the fault line of real-world disputes are often what draws the sort of editors who engage in WP:SOCK / WP:MEAT behavior and which causes them to keep doing it. That means that topic areas like Antisemitism in Poland or ARBPIA are more likely to see disruptive attempts to evade any restriction, necessitating the longer period to make it harder to work around. And on a philosophical level, editors have less need to edit in a disputed topic area than they do to have a voice in selecting ArbCom - if a new editor desperately wants to edit ARBPIA articles, we can just ask them to edit elsewhere for a bit first; whereas when we cut an editor out of the process of electing ArbCom, we've disenfranchised them and that's that. Forbidding intermittent new editors who never reach 500/30 from voting for ArbCom would be more of a loss than banning them from ARBPIA. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
{{
subst:Gs/alert}}
use the abbreviation "Gs" despite explicitly only applying for community-sanctions). I don't think any further discussion of "mistakes" in usage is helpful though. I see your point that this has led to some confusion in general, however, I don't see any of that applying in this specific case where the language of the DS in question was clear and the question whether DS are a part of GS or something separate is not of any relevance afaics. Regards
So
Why 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)I have furthermore simply removed content from "editing content", as I believe that to be redundant. We already have a list of enumerated exceptions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Here's an alternative:
Old version
|
---|
|
I'm still not a huge fan of this approach. We would be better off codifying how all of our topic-wide restrictions should be construed. This draft, however, doesn't introduce new terminology and I think is more clear than the current text. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Now proposed below.
|
---|
In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:
Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:
|
Above is a second draft of the motion. This may be an improvement on the status quo, but our procedures need to codify even more: (keep in mind I'm writing these kind of off the cuff)
I don't want these other things to hold up improvements, but we should be conscious that we're not making other things worse when we try housekeeping motions like this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Amendment_(May_2021) section: in sentence " when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher," please change journals to journal. Ping User:L235 who enacted it. TIA, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over at
Warsaw concentration camp an objection has been raised to using
Haaretz as a source using [
[231]] as a justification, now as far as I know that material has been there for years. So is this a correct interpretation, they have objected so it must be removed [
[232]]?
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
incited by the globally banned user(Icewhiz). Because it's not Icewhiz who's written the Haaretz article in question, they simply tipped off Haaretz in an attempt to gather media attention to the article, and because no specific fact sourced to the article was challenged, it isn't a proper challenge. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 16:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Here are the reasons --> a source that has been written under the influence of a banned user (after he was banned) and quite possibly partially drafted by them provided by them in writing by e-mail is not a RS. Period. -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 17:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As I came here for fresh eyes, maybe we need to let others offer their opinions? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Case clerks: SQL ( Talk) & Bradv ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Opabinia regalis ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to suggest renaming this case to more accurate and neutral "Polish-Jewish history", as the current name is both incorrect and potentially biased. The current name is incorrect because it is more then just about antisemitism; it is also related to topics like anti-Polish sentiment (see ex. the early evidence/argument presented by User:My very best wishes here) and a similar section by User:MyMoloboaccount. The current name is potentially biased, as it gives undue weight to only one of the aspects of the case, and creates the impression that it is a conflict between anti-antisemitic or pro-antisemitic editors, or otherwise may unconsciously prejudice the parties, neutral editors and arbitrators themselves for or towards the parties. In other words, the current name seems to frame to case as potentially accusing some editors of antisemitism or of supporting antisemitic attitudes/sources, creating a presumption of guilt, from the very onset suggesting that some parties may be 'more correct' or siding with them is expected, and criticizing them would be incorrect, when this is just one of several dimensions of the case. I therefore urge the ArbCom to rename this case to a more neutral title which will both represent the scope of the dispute better, and avoid prejudicing anyone for or against the parties. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Ping Volunteer Marek and K.e.coffman who commented on this very issue at evidence talk. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
"long anti-Semitic tradition of blaming Esterka". [1] [10] - not "my COATRACKING" - but in this case Haaretz's description (which makes a point academic sources make as well). [11] - stereotyping? Made by a literature researcher, based in Poland I might add, in the context of these figurines that are based on an antisemitic motif. Academic sources abound in the topic area in general, e.g. Modras, Ronald. The Catholic church and antisemitism: Poland, 1933-1939. Vol. 1. Psychology Press, 2000. or Blatman, Daniel. "Polish antisemitism and ‘Judeo‐communism’: Historiography and memory." East European Jewish Affairs 27.1 (1997): 23-43.. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
And I agree with Piotrus and k.e.coffman. Unless the ArbCom has already made up its mind as to the outcome without actually looking at the evidence, then Icewhiz's egregious behavior and battleground attitude, not to mention continual violations of BLP, is as much of an issue as anything else. Even "Polish-Jewish" relations is not entirely accurate as some of his edits concern Poles and Germans (for example whitewashing and minimizing Nazi crimes against Poles) and Poles and Soviets (for example whitewashing and minimizing Stalinist crimes against Poles). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Easiest way to deal with this would be just to name the case "Eastern Europe 3" or something. Also, please recall that ArbCom has had to rename past cases in the past precisely because of unfortunate choices of original names. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
References
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was thinking mainly about the ease of application of any new restrictions that may come out of this case. For example, an admin saying "You are topic banned from Antisemitism in Poland" sounds ambiguous; compare with: "You are topic banned from Jewish-Polish history". The latter is more straightforward, IMO. Some articles that do not mention anti-semitism, but have experienced similar disputes, are Casimir III the Great and Esterka, his mythical Jewish mistress; Barbara Engelking, Polish scholar of the Holocaust. Articles in the Category:Jewish ghettos in Nazi-occupied Poland, although not necessarily related to "antisemitism in Poland", have seen extensive use of problematic sources and are part of the disputed area. A potentially adjusted name could also be a benefit in the BLP area. Those writing on Polish-Jewish history would be covered under the case in question, without admins having to figure out how antisemitism comes into this. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just wanted the Committee to be made aware that this was happening. El_C 21:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
(If this is helpful, please consider this a request to add the following as late evidence.) What happened between Icewhiz (IW) and Volunteer Marek (VM) at the article in
the ANEW report above (
Islamophobia in Poland) has happened elsewhere. IW created
Islamophobia in Poland on Aug 3. On Aug 5–6, VM removed large chunks of the article
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19], added tags with the edit summaries like Who is this? Like three people and a dog?
[20] and given that the same editor inserted false information (with a source!) into the article, we need to verify this info
[21], and posted a 3RR warning on IW's talk page
[22].
Talk:Islamophobia in Poland speaks for itself.
That article may not be in the scope of this case, but the same thing happened at
Rafał Pankowski, an article about a Polish sociologist and political scientist who received an
Anti-Defamation League human rights award honoring people who fight antisemitism in Europe. IW created it on May 19. Later that day, VM made a series of removals with edit summaries like BLP UNDUE, just silly
[23] and da f is this?
[24]. In 24hrs, VM made
one,
two,
three deletions. On the second day of the article's existence, Icewhiz started the first talk page thread:
Talk:Rafał Pankowski#Recent edits. VM's first reply: ... Come on, who you're trying to kid? ...
[25]. It goes on from there. By the fourth day, an admin applied 1RR DS to the article
[26].
Same at
Jew with a coin, an article IW created on May 20. The same day, VM deleted content with edit summaries like nonsense
[27], bad grammar
[28], most likely a self promo
[29], rmv POV, rmv gratuitous stereotyping and ethnic generalizations
[30], and POV COATRACK
[31]. IW started the first talk page thread at
Talk:Jew with a coin/Archive 1#Recent edits. It goes from there, and the talk page speaks for itself.
IW posted a thread at VM's talk page called "Hounding" on April 23, asking him to stop doing this sort of thing. [32]
I looked at VM's latest article creations ( Iwaniec Uprising, Kacper Miłaszewski, Aleksander Smolar, 2018–19 education workers' strikes in the United States, and Jafta Masemola) to see if it went both ways. IW only edited one of them, Iwaniec Uprising, a year ago: [33] [34]. – Leviv ich 02:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Since we seem to be back to adding "evidence" (why are you here Levivich?) then let's add the following:
In this edit Icewhiz added (copied) text which was clearly false and not supported by the source. The text, which is about a marginal non-notable "politician" from a fringe party submitting a request to the Ministry of Justice to delegalize Muslim faith organizations, is:
In October of that year, his (Banasiak's) request was denied, however, after the "positive and supportive" intervention of the
Ministry of Justice, the case was to be reopened and reassessed
There is absolutely NOTHING to support that in the source. Here is what the source actually says (my translation, 10th paragraph if you want to confirm with Google translate):
"The ministry confirmed that its workers met with Banasiak. Its press bureau however presents the course of the meeting differently (than Banasiak). It stated: "the claim that the ministry's experts declared their willingness to help in efforts to delegalize Muslim faith organizations is false. During the meeting the experts only affirmed that, according with procedures they will analyze the documents submitted by Pawel Banasiak. After analyzing these documents, the Ministry of Justice did not find any reason to undertake any actions (to support Banasiak)". The ministry's press bureau added that "the freedom of religion is guaranteed by the (Polish) constitution". [1]
In other words, the source says THE OPPOSITE of what Icewhiz inserted into the article.
There's further falsification in the same edit. The inserted text states:
Banasiak's actions, as well as the Ministry of Justice's "supportive decision", were both concerning to the Polish Tatars, as well as
Rafał Pankowski
The source is an article from Vice [35]. This one's in English so it's even easier to verify that it says nothing like it. There is ABSOLUTELY no mention of "Polish Tatars" in the article. There is NOTHING in it about Ministry of Justice, much less anything about its "supportive decision".
Note that in both cases quotation marks are used which falsely indicates that these are direct quotes from the sources. They're not. They're falsifications of the source ( WP:HOAX anyone?).
This is just false false false false. There really is no other way for me to express that. It's false. That's it. False. And somebody tacked a source at the end to fake-source it.
Icewhiz inserted this info into the article. When asked WHY he added that in, he has refused to answer.
There's only two possibilities here:
Possibility 1 - Icewhiz verified the sources, saw that the info was NOT in them, but decided to include the false text into the article anyway because it fit his POV. This would indeed constitute another WP:HOAX pushed by Icewhiz. Possibility 2 - Icewhiz failed to verify the source and just copied-pasted it without checking because it neatly fit into his POV.
Now, assuming good faith, I expect that the true explanation is Possibility 2. Icewhiz just copy-pasted text which fit his POV and didn't check whether the source actually supported it. Normally this would be cause for a short block or topic ban, but not an indef ban the way that pushing HOAXes/Possibility 1 would be. However, given that Icewhiz has (falsely) accused me of "not verifying" sources [36] and screamed bloody murder about it, this once again illustrates the double standards that Icewhiz edits under. Put it simply, he's regularly guilty of what he falsely accuses others of. Any sanctions on him should take this cynical approach into account.
As to Leviv's accusations, I've already addressed this accusation in my evidence. I've been editing this topic area since 2005. Icewhiz has followed me to far more article than vice-versa. In fact, Icewhiz has clearly looked through my contributions from 8-10 years ago and went back to restart edit wars and disputes. And what exactly is suppose to be wrong with the edit summary "bad grammar" or "BLP UNDUE, just silly" or any of the other ones for that matter?
And yes it's true that Icewhiz created this article. AFTER the proposal for such an article came up at Talk:Racism in Poland [37] where I was involved!!! So why WOULDN'T I be interested in this article? I was part of the conversation that led to its creation ffs! This is just insanely silly.
But let's put that aside. If you see somebody putting blatantly false information into an article, and pretending that sources support it when they don't, what are you suppose to do? Leave it in? Say nothing? No. You remove it. That's not "hounding". That's actually improving the encyclopedia.
Hey User:Levivich, what's worse, inserting false info into Wikipedia articles and pretending to source it, or pointing out that someone has done that? I mean, if the second one is worse - which it appears from your comment you believe - then OH MY GOD should Icewhiz be sanctioned for "hounding" Poeticbent and accusing him of the very thing! Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
(also, whenever somebody claims stuff like "XYZ speaks for itself" that's really a way of saying "I got nothing, but I'm gonna pretend there's something really bad going on". It's a rhetorical trick which hopes that readers will be too lazy to actually click and check for themselves) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In regards to Iwaniec Uprising (over a year ago) - I got to it via NPP (back then - I was more active on NPP) - ticked it as approved, added standard flags given article state, made a very minor improvements, and then moved on. VM indeed shows up on most articles and major edits I do to existing articles when they are related to certain topics. A very limited set of examples (diff count limits - containing only articles that VM never edited before) is in my Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence#Volunteer Marek's harrassment of Icewhiz) , but it is much wider - as Levivich points out. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
is actually well supported by the cited newspaper pieceComplete and utter horseshit. No, it is not. Stop lying. Because that's EXACTLY what you're doing here. There's not a damn thing in there about:
Just wanted the Committee to be made aware that Volunteer Marek has violated 1RR on History of the Jews in Poland. Some background is available here and here. I felt hesitant to block since my offer to him to self-revert was mistakenly issued after that was no longer possible, otherwise I would have blocked for 24 hours — being careless is not a reason I'd be inclined to readily accept for this dispute. And since I've already been lenient once before for his technical 3RR violation noted in the sections above, I'm feeling more than a little uneasy about this. Anyway, my hope is that the Arbitration case will be closed soon, so that those of us dealing with the dispute on the article space would have further guidance in which to operate. El_C 21:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
While evidence and the workshop has closed, I'd like to note that WP:HOUNDing has continued afterwards (as pointed out by Levivich above). This has included:
Icewhiz ( talk) 07:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unfortunately the case didn't manage to stop others from making continued edits that seem to serve no other purpose but to incite and enflame interaction with others
For example, Icewihiz creates an article [50] loaded with extreme statements and cherrypicked statements presenting in the worst way imaginable Poland and Poles
However looking at the pattern in previous articles and edits that were done in similar, I am not surprised by this. The article is written in a way that is bound to provoke less reserved users into heated debates and disputes, and at this point seems to have been purposefully loaded with as many controversial statement as possible.The extreme statements pushed in the edits and articles are presented in a way that presents Holocaust as some kind of German-Polish endeavour, information about Nazi atrocities against Poles is removed, as is about Nazi occupation of Poland, and Poles are presented as having antisemitism as their cultural identity.If this was not Icewhiz's intention, then unfortunately,it hard not to perceive these edits as such.
As Joanna Michlic(an author Icewhiz quoted several times when she was extremely critical of some Polish historians) writes in her book Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present: "This book also opposes an attitude that can be found in popular collective Jewish memory that that presents Polish anti-Semitism as “unique” or “uniquely extreme,” as equal to or “even more severe” than Nazi anti-Semitism, with its full-scale genocidal solution to the "Jewish question". Editors on Wikipedia should be careful not to repeat such stereotyping(even unwillingly).
Unfortunately the continued edits about Poland and Polish society that constantly present the most extreme claims and statements such as describing (in context of World War 2 Nazi racist atrocities) the Holocaust as mainly German(excluding Polish role) [51], trying to describe 13th century Poland as state motivated by racism [52], n aming genocide of Poles "limited action" by Germans, and writing that when describing Poland in WW and writing about Polish victims of Nazi Germany "Poles should appear last" [53], or comparing Polish resistance against Nazis to SS and Wehrmacht [54] seem to indicate a troubling lack of neutrality on the subject and unwillingness to pursue in dialog and edits in constructive, noninflammatory manner.
We of course all have our biases, but editors should be able to identify extreme positions, and the above sadly look ones easy to spot.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Additional
WP:HOUNDING following closure of evidence and workshop:
I will note that VM's edits during this case - to the newly created LGBT-free zone and Islamophobia in Poland exhibit issues with mainstream sources (NEWSORG for the former (new topic), and academic sources for the latter) covering the brand (and consequences thereof) of Catholic-nationalism advocated by the PiS party in Poland - and not just issues with antisemitism specifically. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
first-ever LGBT+ rights march, headlined
Polish cities and provinces declare ‘LGBT-free zones’ as government ramps up ‘hate speech’, which says:
Nearby, the Nazis exterminated Jews and other minorities – including gay people – during World War II. But the killing did not stop with the end of the war. Dozens of Jews were murdered in Kielce in a pogrom on 4 July 1946. The killings convinced many of Poland’s remaining Jews who had survived the Nazi Holocaust that there was no future for them in the country.You deleted this sentence with the edit summary " blatant coatracking". How is this sentence coatracking? Icewhiz reverted your deletion, pointing out it's in the source, and then you tried turning the whole article into a redirect with the edit summary " not notable ...", which has now been reverted (thankfully). This is all within 24 hours of the article's creation. This is the umpteenth article of Icewhiz's where the first thread on the talk page is Icewhiz trying to start a discussion about one of your edits: Talk:LGBT-free zone#Recent edits. You are, in fact, hounding Icewhiz, on a daily basis, and should stop. – Leviv ich 06:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Aside from being written in a tendentious over-the-top POV manner ...May I suggest for next time the following format:
I disagree with [text] because [reason].– Leviv ich 06:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
"creating WP:POINTy content and comments which are obviously meant to provoke others"- I don't think LGBT rights in Poland is a particularly provocative topic. If we ignore right-wing press inside of Poland, mainstream WP:NEWSORGs (BBC, WaPo, NYT, Telegraph, etc. as well as liberal press in Poland - e.g. Gazeta Wyborcza) - are really all covering the issue in the same manner. However, VM's comments that this content is somehow meant to "provoke" has resonated with a quote I just saw in the Financial Times as I'm trying to expand the article:
Poland’s ruling party fuels anti-LGBT sentiment ahead of elections, FT, 11 August 2019. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)“In the past [LGBT people] lived in silence. What is happening now is a provocation, it’s not necessary,” said Jarek, an engineer from Plock, as he watched the marchers gather. “Poles don’t want this. We’re a Catholic country. What is this? . . . They are trying to provoke us.”
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Icewhiz started the article LGBT-free zone, about some municipalities in Poland doing stupid shitty things. Essentially some local politicians making anti-LGBT declarations. There is some good content in the article but overall it's not notable. Stupid shitty politicians say stupid shitty things all the time. In US, we have had a series of states pass insane anti-abortion laws. Wikipedia doesn't even have articles about them. Because on their own they're not notable (as long as they don't go to SCOTUS). Same thing here. But hey, this is Icewhiz chance to write another "hey look at how bad the Poles are!!!" articles that he's been mass producing lately, while the ArbCom case stalled.
So I raise the notability objection and I propose to merge the content (which, like I said, some is good) to LGBT rights in Poland. Icewhiz removes the tag within minutes, literally while I was getting a drink from the kitchen, [75] and THEN has the audacity to lecture me on the talk page [76] about "not starting proper discussion". Obviously if he hadn't immediately started edit warring to remove the tag I would have started such a discussion.
If this isn't a textbook example of disingenous, bad faithed, WP:GAMEing, I don't know what is.
But hey, it's Icewhiz, so it actually gets worse.
Now that he knows I think this article is non-notable, he starts spamming it into as many articles as he can think of: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. Now, on some of these, like Homophobia, or maybe even Bialystok *some* of this content belongs in there. But the rest... it's gratuitous.
"Oh, you don't think my article is notable? Well, I'm gonna stuff the same thing into as many places as I can, just to piss you off!" You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that he is not being deliberately provocative.
But hey, it's Icewhiz, so it actually gets worse.
Icewhiz, even tried to stuff this into ... the article
No-go zone
[84]. What is the article on the
No-go zone about? It's about, quote: A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups.
What. The. Hey. Does. This. Have. To. Do. With some stupid politicians in Poland being assholes about LGBT rights?
That clearly shows that these edits were made solely with the purpose of provocation, and were not indented seriously. Otherwise, he wouldn't have done something as ridiculous as adding this content to the No-go zone article.
This is of course par-for-the-course for Icewhiz. Over the past few weeks he's gone on a tear and most of his edits are of the similar problematic and disruptive nature. The topic ban is three years over due. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
"Now that he knows I think this article is non-notable, he starts spamming it into as many articles as he can think of"VM lists (first three diffs): 14:45, 14 August, 14:44, 14 August, 14:44, 14 August 2019 (particular regions declaring themselves "LGBT-free zones") - which pre-date VM's involvement in the article.
A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area, barricaded off
- This isn't it.
Areas undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control
- This, isn't it.
Areas that have a reputation
for violence
and crime
- This isn't it.
Areas inhabited by a parallel society
- This? Isn't it.
A no-go area, where authorities have lost control
- This isn't it.
Areas where fishing
and overfishing
- Is that the one?
You are being patently and transparently absurd.— Volunteer Marek, August 15th 2019
(Transcribed by François Robere ( talk))
@
AGK and
SQL: The closing comment The evidence and workshop phases are over. Please stop trying to re-litigate this case
is unhelpful. The issues posted to this talk page didn't exist when the evidence and workshop phases were open–these are new instances of disruption. Nobody is "re-litigating" anything; editors are asking for help. Some of these issues have been brought to you by an admin, from a noticeboard, who is understandably reluctant to unilaterally use tools when a case is pending before Arbcom. Instead of brushing off by hatting sections–which I basically take as a message to shut up and wait patiently–perhaps Arbcom could do something to help with the ongoing disruption while we wait for a proposed decision? For example, you could issue some kind of temporary order, or maybe just a statement reassuring admin that they can use their tools as normal while the case is pending and don't have to worry about stepping on toes. Either way, there's ongoing disruption, and this is the port of last call. So far, it seems Arbcom is just ignoring this. Everybody understands waiting for a proposed decision, but in the meantime: a little help, please? –
Leviv
ich 03:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
In "Article sourcing expectations" the text states " to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45)". Errr, shouldn't this be 1939-45, not 1933-45? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Volunteer Marek at 20:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Per the recent comments on my talk page by User:TonyBallioni [86], User:Piotrus [87] and User:Worm That Turned [88], I am submitting this request to amend the Proposed Remedy 3.3.2 [89] of this case to read:
Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on Volunteer Marek anywhere on Wikipedia.
This effectively converts the two sided IBAN into a one sided one.
As User:Worm That Turned points out, with Icewhiz indefinitely banned from Wikipedia the grounds for a two way IBAN are no longer valid and its original rationale is no longer applicable. Related to Tony Ballioni's point, there occasionally arise discussion/interactions on Wikipedia where I (Volunteer Marek) am brought up or discussed in some connection to Icewhiz by other editors (some of them apparently brand new accounts) and where, because of the IBAN, I am unable to comment, reply or defend myself (this happened for example on User:Jimbo Wales's talk page). This is particularly egregious since Icewhiz was indefinitely banned for extremely nasty off-wiki harassment of myself (as well as other editors).
Likewise, since the end of the case, and Icewhiz's indef ban, the topic area has seen a proliferation of new accounts and sock puppets (although not all of them are Icewhiz). Some of these appear to be engaged in baiting behavior, for example by restoring Icewhiz's old edits, which raises the possibility of an inadvertent IBAN violation. In other cases, these sock puppets/new accounts have made edits which target me personally but because of the IBAN I am unable to bring up the possibility that they are connected to Icewhiz on Wiki (some of the diffs from these accounts have been oversighted due to their extremely nasty nature).
I want to state that if this amendment carries, I have no intention of "seeking out" Icewhiz, or gravedancing, or "interacting" with his old edits or initiating discussions about him. For the most part I will be all too happy to continue to ignore his existence. However, as stated above, there is no longer a need for this restriction and occasionally (like with SPIs) a situation may arise where I should be able to comment.
I'm not comfortable with this being so broad. VM ought to be able to comment in some cases, but simply allowing them to comment anywhere for any reason doesn't sound reasonable. Volunteer Marek says there occasionally arise discussion/interactions on Wikipedia where I (Volunteer Marek) am brought up or discussed in some connection to Icewhiz by other editors (some of them apparently brand new accounts) and where, because of the IBAN, I am unable to comment, reply or defend myself; why can't we amend to say that on such occasions, VM may comment. --valereee ( talk) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Remedy 2 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned") is renamed Icewhiz banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek and amended to read:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by My very best wishes at 22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
According to the Article sourcing expectation remedy [90], "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."
The question. Does that sourcing restriction covers only content on the "Polish history during World War II (1933-45)" or it covers any other content that appear on the same page where anything related to the Polish history during World War II was mentioned? For example, there is a page Gas chamber. It includes a section about Nazi Germany that seems to be related to the Polish history during World War II [91]. However, it also includes sections about other countries, such as North Korea [92], USA and Lithuania [93]. Would these sections also be covered by such sourcing restriction? Meaning, should the section about North Korea be removed?
In other words, can content completely unrelated to Poland be removed based on this sourcing restriction, as in this edit (note edit summary)? Note that the page in question is not about Poland, but about Gas chamber. It only includes some content related to Poland.
Why. I am asking because the subjects related to other countries often have only a limited coverage in RS and were not subjects of significant scholarly studies. A lot of subjects are simply not science.
I would also suggest an amendment. I think this sourcing restriction for Poland should be removed for the following reasons:
Responses |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Paul Siebert Paul wants to make this removal. In this edit Paul removes everything referenced to works by historian Nikita Petrov (a publication in Novaya Gazeta), to Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to historian Lydia Golovkova, to a book by Mikhail Schreider who was an important witness to the crimes by the Soviet NKVD, to a book by Petro Grigorenko who was one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement, and to publications in Kommersant which is arguably an RS. These so called "non-scholarly sources" tell essentially the same as "scholarly sources" (ones that remain on the page after his edit), however they provide some additional important details and corroborate the entire story. @JzG Who thinks it would be a bad thing if this were applied over more articles or sections? That would be any reasonable person, because we have WP:NEWSORG as a part of WP:RS for a very good reason. And that depends on which articles and sections. If subject X has been covered in a huge number of sources, including academic ones (or this is a purely scientific subject, rather than magic), then such restriction might work OK, even though excluding journalistic sources could violate the balance and work against WP:NPOV. However, consider one of sub-subjects related to Human rights in North Korea, let's say Kang Chol-hwan or Lee Soon-ok (I would like to stick to the same example). There are no sources about them beyond publications in good journalistic sources like BBC and a couple of human rights reports. Personally, I prefer good journalistic sources. Or consider a notable movie covered only in multiple journalistic sources and Rotten tomatoes. @Assayer. Discussing "whether a particular source was reliable, whether a particular author was qualified, and whether a source is being misunderstood or misrepresented" is normal process. RSN did not "fail to settle these questions". It worked just fine, as it should, and provided some advice from the participants and uninivoled contributors. |
@Worm TT. Enforcing WP:RS would be great, but you want it in WP:AE setting to sanction people. Therefore, you need to establish very clear rules which would be obvious for everyone. This is nearly impossible. Even something as simple as 1RR/3RR causes a lot of confusion. A more complex "consensus required" remedy caused more harm than good in AP area. But this is even a more complex restriction. A lot of sources are not inherently reliable or unreliable. Their usage should be discussed on a case to case basis and be decided per WP:Consensus. In other words, to impose such restriction you should answer the following questions:
The bottom line (in my opinion). Arbcom and admins should not change the "five pillars". That restriction changes rather than just enforces WP:RS policy (and adversely affects the WP:NPOV by default). My very best wishes ( talk) 14:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
However, if you absolutely want to keep some restriction, I think Nick-D get it almost right (I omit only his first phrase as too ambiguous):
"Preference should be given to peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books. Other reliable sources may be used to augment scholarly works or where such works are not available."
It seems the request was inspired mostly by this.
Briefly, My Very Best Wishes' edits of the Gas van article are heavily dependent on questionable primary sources (an RSN discussion of one of key sources used by MVBW can be found here). The "Soviet Gas Van" topic is based literally on few sentences taken from one tabloid article, which were reproduced by several secondary sources, and handful of testimonies, part of them state that "Soviet gas van" was used to incapacitate victims before execution, not to kill them, and some of them say that NKVD documents the whole story is based upon cannot be trusted. For comparison, this article about Holocaust in Yugoslavia performs detailed analysis of real and perceived cases of gas van usage in Holocaust, and concludes that some witness testimonies should be treated with great cautions, and usage of gas vans to kill non-Jews is, most likely, a post-WWII myth. As compared with that article, the sources telling about Soviet gas van look like a school student essay.
A comparison of sources that tell about Nazi and Soviet gas vans demonstrates that the level of fact checking and accuracy are incomparable. In my opinion, combining poor sources telling about Soviet gas van and good sources telling about Nazi gas van is tantamount to combining articles from
Physical Review Letters and popular schientific journal for kids in the article about
Uncertainty principle: the level of sources should be more or less uniform in articles, otherwise we just discredit Wikipedia.
Second, I found the MVBW's rationale (
the subjects related to other countries often have only a limited coverage in RS and were not subjects of significant scholarly studies
) very odd, because he is literally advocating inclusion of questionable sources to support some exceptional claim (the claim that gas vans were invented and used in the USSR is exceptional) because this claim is
not covered by multiple mainstream sources. In other words, the argument against inclusion of this material is used to support inclusion of poor sources.
Third, during the discussion of the Collaboration in Poland Arbitration Case I already proposed (01:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)) sourcing restriction as an almost universal solution for conflicts in EE area. It already has had positive effect in Holocaust in Poland area, and I am 100% sure expansion of sourcing expectaions on whole EE area will quench lion's share of conflicts. At least, the long lasting conflict around the Gas van story will immediately stop is this criteria will be applied to that article. Importantly, in contrast to various topic bans or 1RRs, which are totally palliative measures, more stringent sourcing criteria really improve quality of articles and quench conflicts.
Comments on MVBW's comments
--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 23:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding
Brief reply to comment by Paul Siebert below, a comparison with
my most recent proposal demonstrates MVBW's statement is FALSE: I do not propose to remove Solzhenitsyn. Other two sources are primary, and per
WP:REDFLAG they cannot be used for such exceptional claims, and the newspaper article just briefly repeats what other sources say. In general, editorial style of MVBW can be characterized as manipulation with poor sources to push certain POVs. A typical example is
this edit, where MVBW added one primary source and one newspaper article, each of which provide the identical text. Although the latter may formally be considered as a secondary source (more precisely, op-ed, per NEWSORG), the author does not comment on the cited memoirs, so there is no analysis, evaluation or synthesis (which are necessary traits of any secondary source). In other words, MVBW uses a primary source to advance some exceptional claim, and he duplicates the source to create a false impression of wider coverage of this topic.
I think this behaviour deserves more detailed analysis of ArbCom, and I am going to prepare and submit full scale case, because the discussions on talk pages and various noticeboards aimed to convince MVBW to abandon this type behaviour lead just to repetition of the same arguments, which MVBW ignores.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 19:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@
Assayer:
RSN has failed to settle these questions
, actually, as our ongoing discussion at WP:V talk page with SarahSV demonstrated, the burden of proof rests with the user who adds a source, and that includes the proof that the source is reliable. That means consensus is needed not to remove a source, but to keep it. Actually, no consensus was achieved to keep that source during the RSN discussion you refer to, so that source can be removed. That can be done even if without additional restrictions, but applying such restriction would facilitate that process dramatically.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 20:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@
François Robere: In the case of newspapers, per
WP:NEWSORG, one has to discriminate news, editorials, and op-eds. If sourcing restrictions allow reliable primary sources, then editorials are ok.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 16:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Mkdw:,@ Worm That Turned: and other ArbCom members. This and some other related discussions forced me to reconsider my initial opinion. I propose a different, more global, solution at WP:V talk page.
In addition, independently on the outcome of the discussion at the policy talk page, a solution for the Holocaust in Poland related area should be:
To explain how that should work, let's take a look at the recent MyMoloboaccount case as an example (see this page below). Instead of reporting him, FR could just revert MyMoloboaccount's edits, and make a reference to DS and WP:REDFLAG in the edit summary. If MyMoloboaccount tried to re-add the contested material again, FR could file a standard AE request, and, had admins approached this issue in accordance with DS's letter and spirit, they would block or topic ban MyMoloboaccount. In other words, no specific source restrictions are needed, and, therefore, the users who add non-controversial or non-contested materials to the Holocaust related articles are not at risk to be sanctioned. Only those who made contested edits using low quality reliable source will be at risk, and, in my opinion, that would in accordance with DS spirit. Remember, the very idea of DS is to prevent conflicts, which means a user who is editing without being involved in a conflict should not be sanctioned. Based on my own experience, overwhelming majority of conflicts occurs in the areas covered by WP:REDFLAG, which means enforcement of REDFLAG violations resolves lion's share of conflicts.
In other words: the actual DS spirit should be as follows:
The problem is that, as a rule, many admins do not see REDFLAG violations as deserving AE attention. However, that is a problems with DS implementation, not with DS themselves. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 22:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This question was already posed at WP:AE#Gas_Van_and_sourcing_requirements — I closed it with (nominal) consensus that restrictions in topical articles do cover untopical sections therein. Mind you, the question became moot with the article having been split into topical and untopical entries. El_C 01:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a thorny issue. If the presence of the section Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany requires the entire article Gas_chamber to be subject to the same strict Antisemitism-in-Poland sourcing expectation, then the section Gas_chamber#North_Korea would have to be deleted, as is it entirely sourced from newspapers and first hand witness accounts. Alternately Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany would have to be split out into a separate article Nazi gas chambers (which currently redirects to Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany). -- Nug ( talk) 05:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I've not been involved in the particular discussion mentioned here, though I have been involved in the topic area and the ArbCom case that resulted in the sourcing restrictions subject of this ARCA request. The discussions span four articles: Gas chamber, Gas van, Nazi gas van and Soviet gas van. Two of these were split [96] [97] from the main article [98] [99] - splits which may or may not be justified on content grounds, but which were done during an ongoing discussion on sourcing, raising the concern that they were done to avoid the sourcing restrictions placed on the main article. I've reverted all of them while discussion is ongoing, [100] [101] [102] and asked for clarifications on the main TP. [103] François Robere ( talk) 15:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The core argument here seems to be that because something is covered only in questionable sources, we should relax the sourcing requirement to allow it to be included from those questionable sources. I think I'm reading that right.
I don't think it needs ArbCom to tell us that's a terrible idea.
What are the restrictions, you ask?
Who thinks it would be a bad thing if this were applied over more articles or sections? Given the abundance of excellent sources covering these topics and this timeframe, anything that does not appear in sources of this quality is very likely to be WP:UNDUE even if it's not POV-pushing. Guy ( help!) 00:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the pragmatic thing to do here would be to apply the sourcing restrictions to (i) content regarding Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland; and (ii) sections of articles which relate exclusively or primarily to Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland.
This would mean that on the Gas chamber article, the restrictions would apply to the whole of the Nazi Germany section (as that section is primarily related to Polish history during WWII), but not other sections of that article. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
The Antisemitism in Poland case found, that much of the evidence and thus much of the dispute, centered on disputed sourcing and use of low-quality sources, specifically, whether a particular source was reliable, whether a particular author was qualified, and whether a source is being misunderstood or misrepresented. The dispute which fuels My very best wishes’ clarification request is very much of the same kind. RSN has failed to settle these questions, in part because the sources are largely written in Russian and there are few uninvolved editors able to read them. The sourcing restrictions imposed on the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland have been found to have had a positive effect by stabilizing the article and limiting disputes. Since the Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism is a highly controversial and a much disputed field, content on Stalinism that is raised and connected to Nazism within an article largely dealing with the Holocaust in Poland should not be exempted from these restrictions, and these restrictions should certainly not be removed altogether.
I may note that not only is the article gas chamber, which should provide some sort of overview, an ill-conceived example for the urgent need of detailed information. The way My very best wishes expanded [109] the article basically by copying huge chunks of text including notes from the stand-alone article - all the while knowing that the “invention” of gas vans was disputed [110] - is quite revealing as is the way they put the sections “in a chronological order” [111], effectively ignoring the Nevada gas chamber of 1924. Nevertheless, quick research turns up better sources for Lithuania and North Korea, sources which would meet the high-quality sourcing restrictions. Thus, the use of better sources would improve the encyclopedia.-- Assayer ( talk) 18:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Mkdw: I think what you write would work fine, except that I would add (for completeness) that whatever is summarized from the WWII/Poland related sections elsewhere in the broad article (e.g. in the article's introductory paragraphs, in a table grouping data from several sections of the article, etc), irrespective of whether such summaries carry their own references or rely on references elsewhere in the article, would also be subject to the strict sourcing requirements of the "Antisemitism in Poland" ArbCom case. Similar for Standard appendices and footers, e.g. a "Further reading" section should not list literature of a lesser quality on WWII/Poland topics. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been active on Wikipedia since 2005 with a focus on World War II, and for as long as I can remember our coverage of Poland, and especially 1920s-1940s era Poland, has been a deeply troubled topic area. I think it's entirely sensible to require a strict adherence to
WP:RS as an attempt to ease these problems. I don't see any reason for good faith editors to struggle with this remedy: it might slow them down, but they should be pleased that it will result in better quality articles. As I have noted at
WT:MILHIST#Implications of recent ArbCom case for content creation on WWII Polish topics I wouldn't support this kind of restriction being rolled out more broadly, but in unusual circumstances like this it's a worthwhile experiment.
Nick-D (
talk) 09:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I am wary of any topic specific polices at the best of times. But when it is loaded with subjective criteria (As this is) I start to get very alarmed as to intent. I have no issue with "peer-reviewed scholarly journals", but what is an "academically focused book"? As to "reputable institutions", who decides this, what is reputable (and why is a newspaper not a reputable institution?)? This is all too fuzzy and ill defined for me. I find it odd that it did not just read ""peer-reviewed scholarly journals or works by recognized academics". Slatersteven ( talk) 10:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Unsure about "recognized institutions", it would be best if we stuck to as narrow a definition as possible. One answer may be "academic institutions", but may still be open to abuse. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Worm That Turned, I do not think that adding works by recognized academics
is a good idea. Take
this source. It is a set of lecture notes, yet an editor is arguing that he should not have been sanctioned for adding it (and some worse sources) because the scholar is well known. Such sources are not reliable and should not be used, but this change would open the door to using them. This would make the sourcing restrictions effectively meaningless. I also think that the phrasing or published by recognized institutions
needs to be tightened, as at the moment that same user is using it to argue in favor of using a newspaper, and it was indeed understood to include them by
Sandstein. This was not the intention and the wording needs to be changed to "reputable historical/scholarly institutions" or something like that.--
Ermenrich (
talk) 14:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The wording was too rigid. Making a sharp division between academic and no academic sources is not necessarily helpful--there are multiple works in any field that defy easy classification, and also many works not strictly academic that are of equal standing and reliability. Nor is being academic a guarantee of reliability--I mention for example Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi racial science, both with high national academic standing, and, in the case of Nazi science, considerable international recognition. I'd suggest a much more flexible wording 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. and works of similar quality and responsibility". Considering the examples given in the request, I think that this would deal with much of it. Newspapers, however, are a more difficult problem, and the responsibility of content of serious topics published is newspapers is variable. Depending on the topic covered, I think there is no reason not to use them, if they are used with caution, and for some related topics, they may be essential. I'd would perhaps say Newspapers andmagazines can be used ,but with caution and agreement, and in context..
I understand the felling of the arbs who have commented that this is too early to make the change, but I think the original conception was overly simplistic, and would impair rational consideration of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been following this and the original case with interest. I have plenty of experience with disputed sourcing in ARBEE from my work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles and have never once thought this level of ArbCom intervention was needed. I am fundamentally opposed to this remedy because it enters into content areas, and the arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes, not content ones. If ArbCom wants to get involved in content matters, then it should ask the community for the scope of ArbCom to be expanded and receive that imprimatur before sticking its oar into content areas. We have a perfectly serviceable reliable sources policy, and questions about whether a particular source is reliable are determined by consensus, supplemented by outside opinions via RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC if a consensus cannot be arrived at between the regular editors of the article in question. As has been noted above, if the editor that wants to use a source cannot get a consensus that a source is reliable, it cannot be used. The Article sourcing expectations remedy should be voided as it was made outside the scope of ArbCom's remit. If article sourcing guidance beyond WP:RS is needed for a particular contentious area, it should be developed by the content creators who actually know the subject area, not by ArbCom. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Piotrus at 04:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations remedy from the recent case seemed like a good idea at a time. When I thought about the restriction passed, I thought it would reinforce WP:BRD: someone (re)adds a problematic reference, they get reverted, their source is discussed on talk or at WP:RSN, and they are warned that they should not re-add it or such until a consensus is reached. A sort of 1RR for problematic sources, particularly in case of WP:REDFLAGs.
However, this recent AE ruling, where an editor ( User:MyMoloboaccount) was blocked for a week in about an hour after the request was made, for restoring a problematic source or two, with no discussion on talk anywhere, just a straight report and near insta block, gave me a major pause. It is good to require editors to use quality sources; there is a ton of bad sources to be weeded out, and adding more low quality ones needs to be discouraged (I habitually remove low quality refs and there's a lot of garbage in this topic area: ex. [112], [113]). But discouragement should not be achieved by a wiki equivalent of nuking people for small infractions. Now, I have personally written hundreds of articles related to this topic area, and I am speaking with my content creator hat now: the above AE ruling has made me scared of creating any new topics in this area, expanding them or even of reverting problematic edits by likely socks/SPIs. Because if one can get a week long block for a first infraction with no need for an explicit warning, this is an invitation to create a battleground populated by said socks/SPIs, and in a short while we will have nobody else editing this topic area.
If one can get blocked for a week+ in an hour after adding a borderline source, this opens a major can of worms. Sure, we can all agree that some sources like personal webpages, blogs or forums are unacceptable, but there are plenty that fall in a gray area, and I find it scary that a single admin is now not only apparently empowered to decide what is reliable or not, bypassing prior talk consensuses, RSN and such, but per DS could even impose year blocks and topic bans of up to a year at a whim. Let me illustrate this with some practical example of what has been used in this topic area.
In the linked AE thread, for example, a newspaper was among the sources reported as 'bad', through the closing admin judged it acceptable. That was for Rzeczpospolita (newspaper). But which other newspaper will make the cut and which will be seen as not reliable? If someone uses a more controversial paper like Sieci or Do Rzeczy as a source, will they get a week long block? A year long topic ban? For the first infraction? What about an article from a news portal like Onet.pl? Can a city portal be used to reference information about unveiling of a local monument or celebration of a remembrance event? Or a March of the Living coverage? Yes, newspapers and such are not the best sources, but are they now a gamble with a potential block or ban? Is an average admin that does probably does not speak Polish empowered to make such calls based on what they see in an English Wikipedia article on a Polish newspaper, magazine or portal (if one event exists)? If it mentions words like controversial, right-wing, left-wing, or whatever is it that they see as a red flag, it's ban hammer time?
More examples. In my talk post at Talk:Home Army where I reviewed some sources recently challenged on that talk page (and that were shortly after discussed in that AE thread) I noted that I think course notes by a reliable academic are probably ok. Apparently, they are not, since lecture notes are not peer reviewed. Ok. How about [114], a source used in recently created Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study (by the same editor who made the complain about said course notes...)? That appears to be a non-peer reviewed lecture delivered at an unspecified place (I have attended such events as a grad student and later, they can be very informal and address a room of <10 people). Ban editor for using such a source or not? What if someone cites a popular history magazine such as Histmag? Reliable or not? Toss a coin? How about a source published by Institute of National Remembrance? That institution has been criticized for some recent politicization (as described in the article body), what if the reviewing admin decides that an editor using this source, until now generally seen as acceptable, merits a ban because they find the criticism section in the IPN article convincing and feel that IPN is no longer a reliable source? How about articles from a a museum website? How about an educational website maintained by IPN, like [115] or [116]? How is it better than the course notes that were ruled 'not good enough'? Did I mention popular history magazines? IPN publishes several ( pl:Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej, pl:Biuletyn IPN „pamięć.pl”). What about a portal like [117], which contains information on Polish Righteous Among the Nations, co-financed by by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but also by a controversial NGO associated with unreliable Radio Maryja? Is that portal unreliable because it received financing from a problematic NGO? Even if it is unreliable, an average editor using it may not even be aware of the connection. Block people because they didn't investigate who funds a website sufficiently? I am an academic and an editor experienced in this topic area and in finding reliable sources myself, yet I didn't even realize some of those sources were problematic until someone else pointed it out (that a magazine I assumed was peer reviewed might not be, or that this website received some financing from a shady NGO). Can a website about local tourist attractions be used a source to note that some World War II fortifications survive as said tourist attractions ( [118])? How about websites on shipwrecks? I recently became aware of articles like List of shipwrecks in August 1941 that use many substandard sources ( [119]). If someone adds a source like this about a Polish WWII shipwreck, how many weeks of a block are they looking at? Shortly after the ArbCom case closed I asked one of our milhist ship experts to create an article on a minor ship SMS M85, and he replied that "I think that the recent Arbcom ruling on articles associated with Poland in WW2 makes writing an article impossible." He created it nonetheless, but if he used a less then impeccable source (perhaps [120] that I see in German minesweeper M18 (1939)), would he be looking a ta block? Is using a site like [121] to reference some non- WP:REDFLAG technical details about a ship or another minor detail a major offense now? How about if the article I created on Japanese pilot Naoshi Kanno was Poland-related? I referenced his appearance in an anime series to a source or two that another editor objected to ( [122]). If it was a Polish pilot, would I be blocked now? Topic banned for a year, perhaps, if it was my second or third infraction?
I hope that the above illustrate clearly that the entire Poland WWII topic has become a minefield now that very few editors will dare to edit until this issue is clarified. In particular, we need to know the answers to:
My constructive suggestion is to revise this remedy to make sure that this applies only to editors who have been warned and who engage in edit warring restoring bad sources. In other words, I think that editors should be allowed to add or readd any sources they wish, but once they have been made aware that there is an issue with a source they added through a talk page message, then a 0RR rule should apply pending an outcome of a RSN discussion that the editor who challenged the source should start. If, after made aware that a source is under review, they restore it, then they can be reported to AE. This should be done on a source basis, not editor, i.e. if an editor adds one problematic source, and few weeks later, a different one, it should be treated as separate case, not as a repeat violation (unless it is the same source). Further, an AE ruling in such a case should be not to block an editor for a first infraction, but to add the problematic source to a dedicated blacklist for this topic area. Only editors who re-add a source from said blacklist, after being made aware of its existence through a DS-like warning, should be eligible to being blocked (in practice, one should get warning "you added a source from this blacklist, if you do it again or add any other source from it you may be subject to escalating blocks and bans). To block editors for a first violation, when a source's reliability is often unclear and can merit further discussion, seems like a major battleground escalation, ignoring BDR, and encouraging editors to report their 'opponents' to AE in hope of a quick block. And yes, given the borderline and difficult to investigate nature of many sources, we need a blacklist that specifically states "this website/book/author are bad", because otherwise people will be blocked for plain ignorance or a simple mistake ("you reverted a likely sock that among other edits removed a problematic source. One year topic ban for you. Sock wins. Move on".
I end this with a reminder that I am a content creator and a professional writer, familiar with RS on and off wiki, and in my professional opinion anything more restrictive than the proposal above will create a chilling effect and a major battleground, with editors reporting one another for innocent borderline sources, until no-one is willing to touch this content area with a 10-foot long pole. Remember the adage about good intentions, please. It's enough to look at recent history for Home Army. I am a long standing, experienced contributor, and right now I am abandoning this article, and all related, to likely socks/SPI who have nothing to lose. And I am not going to revert anyone, I will just consider reporting them to AE, since any other course of action is an invitation to get myself blocked. Maybe they will gut this and other articles, removing bad sources, good sources, and whatever else they want, but I am frankly scared or restoring anything, if it is up to a semi-random admin to decide that maybe I merit a year-long topic ban because I added or restored a single borderline source. Is this the type of editing environment this remedy was meant to foster? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
PS. Molobo cannot make a statement as he is currently blocked, unreviewed appeal pending.
PPS. There is also a simple date error with this finding that I raised here (date 1933 should be 1939). I don't think that merits a separate thread.
-->
I was not notified of this request, even though I am listed as involved. This is an appeal of an enforcement action couched in the terms of a clarification request. It should be dismissed because, per applicable policy, only the sanctioned editor may appeal an enforcement action.
In fact, MyMoloboaccount is trying to make an appeal on their talk page, but hasn't said in which forum they want to make the appeal. Maybe an admin can help them out with that. The question of whether I was right to block MyMoloboaccount should then properly be discussed in the course of that appeal.
As to the broader point raised by Piotrus that it is not a good idea to make individual admins decide which sources are inadequate and therefore blockable, I don't really have a view. It's for ArbCom to decide whether such a measure is necessary in this topic area. I assume they chose to do so after careful consideration because the normal method of determining the appropriateness of sources through consensus has failed. But the authority given to admins here isn't really any broader than under discretionary sanctions, which already apply to the topic area. Sandstein 16:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Mymoloboaccount has been here long enough to know better. [124] is a flagrant misrepresentation of the source. Mymoloboaccount is lucky to have received only a one week block for this. Guy ( help!) 11:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Molobo is well aware that their editing is seen as problematic, see here. Their current arguing over the block only demonstrates either a lack of understanding of what a reliable source is, in which case competence issues seem present, or else willful disregard for it. There is no reason to hollow out these requirements because you're "scared". Molobo's block is, if anything, a sign that they are effective. He is fully aware of the remedy and the block, having participated in the case, and he's been here for years and years, so he ought to have a better sense of sourcing anyway.
If you have concerns about other editors' edits, you are also free to report them. The hope was this would clean up the area. Relaxing the restrictions would undermine this goal.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
In general, users who are new to Wikipedia or to a topic area aren't blocked immediately upon infringing on a rule - they're notified and asked to participate in the TP, as it should be. Molobo isn't either - he's familiar with the topic area, took part in the ArbCom case, [125] and later used as justification for an edit. [126] He's well aware that his edits are problematic - I can count at least six editors and two admins who expressed their concerns about him, in his presence, in several fora.
Editors who regularly discuss their edits, and who do not engage in source misrepresentation or needless edit wars - and I count Piotrus and myself as two - should not feel threatened by these DS. While we in theory we could be served with DS without prior warning, in practice it doesn't happen often.
As for the "chilling effect" of the sanctions: the ArbCom case subject of this amendment request had two editors T-banned, who after the case were blocked (one indef). ANI and AE cases resulted in another editor T-banned, and two more blocked. Another editor, who was already T-banned, postponed her appeal. Five editors were "left standing", but they are joined by a handful of editors who frequent the TA less often, and an unknown number of editors who edit in specific articles or on specific issues. All in all, anywhere from 5-15 editors are active in the topic area at any one time (not counting copy editors, reference fixers and bots), some of which have only become active in the TA after the ArbCom case. In short, there's no evidence of a "chilling effect" on the regular editing activities within the TA. François Robere ( talk) 15:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
As written, this sanction is incredibly vague - it could be argued to apply to almost any subject associated with either the Western or Eastern front in World War II - any area where Polish forces fought, any ship that served with the Polish Navy or with the German navy at the start of the war, any piece of military equipment in service during the German invasion of Poland or the Soviet campaign - and demands that only academic sources be used - a standard that is well in excess of anywhere else on Wikipedia, and if applied strictly will make it impossible to edit in many areas, including most of Military History, as someone can always argue that a source isn't academic enough and demand that the content it supports must be removed on pain of an Arbcom block. Statements by Arbcom members on the case above make it clear that the ruling is expected to be applied widely. This has a clear chilling effect and makes a mockery of Wikipedia being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as it means that only someone with access to a high quality university library and with the backing of a large bunch of supporters who can support them at Arbcom. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Nigel Ish. This remedy does have a chilling effect and is an impediment to those who don’t have access to a university library.
Articles published in academic journals necessarily present new and/or novel perspectives on some topic, the dissemination of these new viewpoints to other academics is the raison d'être of these journals. As such a particular article doesn’t reflect the main stream view, but the viewpoint of the author, by definition a minority viewpoint at the point of publication. It is only when that article is cited by other articles and books that we can get a measure of the acceptance of that viewpoint. It must be noted that the peer review process in history journals isn’t intended to provide a measure of acceptance or endorsement of the view, but, as Anthony Grafton from Princeton University puts it, to assure the authors are not out “wearing their magenta socks”, i.e. to assure themselves their article doesn’t contain glaring mistakes in presentation.
Arbcom has always been about conduct, not content, and proscribing the sourcing of an article is surely not what Arbcom should be doing. Wikipedia already has mechanisms in place to deal with sourcing, and whether to impose stricter content source rules on a particular topic area should really be the decision of the wider community via a RFC.
A way forward in this case would be for Arbcom to suspend this content related remedy pending an outcome to a RFC to the wider community. -- Nug ( talk) 21:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems Nigel Ish and Nug are talking about totally different subjects. Indeed, I concede what Nigel Ish's arguments are partially reasonable: it may be problematic to find, for example, some technical characteristics of some concrete WWII time battleship in peer-reviewed publications. However, it is equally hard to expect a hot dispute about that. In contrast, the Holocaust in Poland topic is an area of incessant conflict between two POVs, both of them are strongly politically motivated and, they seriously affect some national feelings. Obviously, the worst POV-pusher is using the worst sources, and the best way to stop an edit war is not 1RR or "Consensus required", and not even topic bans. The best way to fight against POV-pushers is to deprive them of their main weapon - their sources. Which sources national POV-pushers are using the most frequently? Some obscure books, local newspapers, questionable web sites. If such sources are not allowed - the conflict ends.
Regarding Nug's "This remedy does have a chilling effect and is an impediment to those who don’t have access to a university library." Exactly. If you want to write about such a sensitive topic as Holocaust - go to a local library, find good sources - and write. Jstor provides a free subscription (several articles per month), some journals are free, google scholar provides citations - those who want to write good content have a lot of tools. If, instead of that, they prefer to collect various rumors at the very dark recesses of Internet, then
WP:NOTHERE is the only option.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 21:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@
DGG: I got a much better idea: if some source has been cited by peers, and the references can be found via google.scholar (or some other scientific/scholarly search engine), such a source can be used. This is the approach I myself use (I very rarely use sources that cannot be found by gscholar or jstor search), and this approach was recognized as good
in this peer-reviewed publication, which is specifically devoted to the analysis of content disputes in Wikipedia. With regard to newspapers, there is currently a discussion about a modification of that part of the policy, and it seems a consensus is that only very reputable newspapers are "mainstream newspapers" (good sources per WP:V), and even for them
WP:NEWSORG should work, which means editorial and op-ed materials are primary sources about author's opinion.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 22:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
As I already explained in the previous case, I reconsidered my initial opinion, and I think no specific sourcing restrictions are needed in the Holocaust in Poland area. Instead, admins should be advised to strictly enforce any reported WP:REDFLAG violations, because, in my opinion, it is the position of admins who are active on the AE page which makes DS effectively not working, and the "Sourcing expectation" clause is a non-optimal attempt to partially fix that problem. All needed rules are already present in standard DS, concretely, guide.expect say that editors must strictly comply with all applicable policies and guidelines, and one our policy says:
Indeed, if someone made an non-controversial edit using a poor but reliable source, that is ok, as soon as such edit has not been contested. Let's take the recent Molobo vs FR case as an example: there were no reason to report him for usage of a single garbage source, a simple revert with explanations would be sufficient. After the revert, Molobo was expected either to demonstrate his claim was not exceptional, or to provide multiple good sources, and, up to that point, there is nothing in this conflict that deserves AE. However, if Molobo ignores FR's concern, FR has a right to report Molobo, and AE admins must take such a report seriously. In my opinion, that scheme, if it is adopted, will decrease both a risk for good faith editors to be sanctioned and admin's burden, for in situation when both parties know that REDFLAG violations may inflict serious sanctions dramatically facilitates their willingness to achieve consensus.
Unfortunately, a current admins' attitude makes such scenario unrealistic, because the standard response would be "that is just a content dispute, not actionable". That attitude makes all conflicts in DS areas so long and painful, that that creates an artificial situation when one party looses patience and... and admins perfectly know how to deal with such cases.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 22:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
With respect ot the specific request here, I agree with Piotrus that the wording was too rigid. Making a sharp division between academic and no academic sources is not necessarily helpful--there are multiple works in any field that defy easy classification, and also many works not strictly academic that are of equal standing and reliability. Nor is being academic a guarantee of reliability--I mention for example Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi racial science, both with high national academic standing, and, in the case of Nazi science, considerable international recognition. I'd suggest a much more flexible wording 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. and works of similar quality and responsibility". Considering the examples given in the request, I think that this would deal with much of it. Newspapers, however, are a more difficult problem, and the responsibility of content of serious topics published is newspapers is variable. I wouldn't rule them out entirely, but I don't know quite how to word it. {Possibly '"and other responsible sources bywide general agreement"' . ) DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
What of the "casual" editor of one of the articles to which these restrictions apply - by that I mean someone who is not deeply involved within the narrow confines of the subject, but adds what they believe to be helpful content from a source that would be OK elsewhere in Wikipedia? How would such an editor know that these restrictions apply or, even, how to comply with them? If the casual editor is going to be sanctioned, how does this fit with
WP:GOODFAITH? Surely a central principle of Wikipedia is being subverted in order to control a few rogue problem editors. Feel free to point out to me if you think I have misunderstood (but me saying this emphasises the apparent complexity of rules with draconian penalties).
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 23:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
So these restrictions should only apply to persistent and knowing offenders who ignore warnings. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 23:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This should be a request for amendment. I think this sourcing restriction should be removed and never used again for the reasons I explained in my request. The discretionary sanctions already existing in this subject area are more than sufficient to handle any problems.
A lot of scenarios have been developed, where scores of unsuspecting editors are going to be blocked immediately for using anything other than peer-reviewed scholarly studies. This amounts to scare tactics without actual evidence that these threats are real. But, as a matter of fact, RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC often fail when it comes to certain disputes about whether a particular source is reliable or not. I can name various examples of questionable sources which were determined acceptable and reliable, including interviews with convicted Holocaust perpetrators commenting on “Operation Reinhard”. Instead of discussing abstract scenarios and opening loopholes, the question thus should be: What is the objective of these restrictions? Is this objective acchieved? -- Assayer ( talk) 20:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
In my experience there are two main arguments to fend off a more restricted use of sources, e.g. of scholarly sources only. According to the first argument even primary sources are admissible when they are used for “uncontroversial”, “factual” information which may not be covered by scholarly sources, but is allegedly needed to provide for a “comprehensive” article. The second argument, namely “consensus”, is used to subdue criticism by stating that the use of such sources has been decided upon by “consensus” and that critics should “drop the stick”, even though the criticism and the debate itself demonstrate that “consensus” has changed. Thereby primary sources like SS personal files hosted at state archives, self-published publications, publications by SS veteran organizations and scores of militaria literature have all been declared permissible reliable sources. Yes, article sourcing guidance should be developed by “content creators”, but sometimes some “content creators” become a gated community at odds with the guidelines of the community as a whole and in need of some input from the outside.
@MvbW If I understand correctly, Molobo has not been blocked, because they inserted references to ‘’Jane’s Fighting Ships’’ in an article on a German minesweeper sunk in 1939. And you have not been blocked at all, yet.-- Assayer ( talk) 13:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Mostly copied from the first ARCA thread on this case, because it is just as relevant here as there. I have plenty of experience with disputed sourcing in ARBEE from my work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles and have never once thought this sort of ArbCom intervention was needed. I am fundamentally opposed to this remedy because it enters into content areas, and the arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes, not content ones. If ArbCom wants to get involved in content matters, then it should ask the community for the scope of ArbCom to be expanded and receive that imprimatur before sticking its oar into content areas. We have a perfectly serviceable reliable sources policy, and questions about whether a particular source is reliable are determined by consensus, supplemented by outside opinions via RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC if a consensus cannot be arrived at between the regular editors of the article in question. As has been noted elsewhere, if the editor that wants to use a source cannot get a consensus that a source is reliable, it cannot be used. The Article sourcing expectations remedy should be voided as it was made outside the scope of ArbCom's remit. I think the comments about the chilling effect of this remedy reflect quite reasonable concerns, and these sanctions have a great deal of potential to be used as weapons in content disputes. If article sourcing guidance beyond WP:RS is needed for a particular contentious area, it should be developed by the content creators who actually know the subject area, not by ArbCom. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Like Peacemaker's comment above, the comment I made at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland also applies here. In short, while I think that a remedy requiring quality sourcing is justified, the current remedy is too narrow as it rules out high quality but non-scholarly works. I'd suggest changing it to something like "Only high quality sources may be used. Preference should be given to peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books. Other reliable sources may be used to augment scholarly works or where such works are not available." I have no opinion on the mechanism for enforcing this, noting especially that this topic area has subject to very long-running and serious problems so strict penalties are likely justified, but the usual arrangement where editors who are not aware of the sanction are warned first should obviously apply. Nick-D ( talk) 09:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the above discussion, that we already enforce sourcing thresholds requiring a higher level of quality than that of WP:RS alone - they're used in two of the largest areas of Wikipedia, those being BLP and medical content. Since those areas seem to be working fine, many of the claims about major problems arising from this sanction would therefore seem to be incorrect. While the exact threshold is different in this case (being roughly in between the two in terms of restrictiveness), any argument that would apply equally in those areas needs to establish why this particular topic should be considered to be uniquely different.
The sanction seems to have been successful at preventing the use of poor sources to cause disruption (an issue of behavior, not content), and that should be recognized. Of course, it is entirely possible this particular threshold could be refined, but requests to do so should be based in reasoned argument as to why specific categories of sources have an equivalent level of reliability to the sources that are already permitted, as opposed to the (IMO quite hyperbolic) rhetoric used in some of the comments above. Sunrise ( talk) 09:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by the arguments above that using university sources places an undue burden on editors. For one, the militaria sources preferred by these editors are more difficult to obtain and not necessarily cheaper. For another, we have WP:RX where volunteers are happy to help you get the source you need, and an increasing number of academic publications in continental Europe are open-access. I'm also not convinced by the hyperbole that someone is going to be immediately blocked for using a non-compliant source. To the contrary, source restrictions can be very helpful for getting rid of the ethno-nationalist POV pushing that plagues this area, simply because academic sources are not likely to contain ethno-nationalist POV pushing.
That said, minor uses of news sources can sometimes be helpful for recent updates on a topic (I cite two of them in this Good Article in the subject area). How can we allow that flexibility while discouraging their use for disputed content? I think that it could be amended to explicitly allow the use of RS but non-academic sources on minor parts of an article that deal with technical information or recent updates that are not covered in academic sources. I hesitate to expand that to all areas of an article that are not covered by academic sources because that would likely lead to unbalanced articles where the areas that are not sourced to as good quality sources are covered in more detail and depth than they should be. Like @JzG, I don't think we should relax our sourcing restrictions at all for areas that are only covered by questionable sources. b uidh e 17:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by TonyBallioni at 23:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
This is coming out of the frustration that is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive. As a bit of background, since Icewhiz's ban we've had a myriad of accounts come out of no where with a sudden interest in this topic area. Invariably they are on proxies and pretty much any account that remotely resembles Icewhiz is being reported to that SPI. Some of them are likely him. Some of them are likely some other banned editor editing in violation or a block, and in some cases might actually be a legitimate alternative account that agrees with Icewhiz's positions, but is editing under a new account and a proxy for privacy reasons in an area where there may be legal consequences off-wiki. The thing is, we can't tell, and this is an issue. I sent this in an email to Berean Hunter, Mkdw, and Joe Roe about the ongoing Icewhiz case, but I only see two possible ways to deal with the influx of new accounts in the areas: either we apply 500/30 to the topic area like we do for the Israel-Palestine articles, or we start blocking obvious sock accounts on the proxies in this area until they declare the account owner to ArbCom/the blocking CU. Neither is a particularly fun option and they both have their downsides, but I think 500/30 has the advantage of not blocking individuals who may have a valid reason for an alternative account or may be a legitimate good faith user on a proxy or VPN. It is also pretty likely to work for the specific Icewhiz related part of this problem: his other main area of interest was Israel-Palestine articles and we've had zero problems with him showing up there. Note that I don't think all of these accounts are him, I think there are likely a fair amount of users using sockpuppets in this topic area. We just can't connect them to the original account because of the technical limitations of CheckUser. Employing 500/30 in the area that's probably had the most issues with socking and content disputes in the last year would pretty much put a stop to it. I know it's a fairly big step to take, but the area is smaller than Israel-Palestine, and the positive impacts in my view would likely outweigh the negatives.
The history of Jews and Antisemitism in Poland, including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construedwhich I think would both expand the scope to areas where the current wording wouldn’t help, and also narrow it to get away from stuff like random Polish army brigades. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I support this. Please note that yesterday I presented new evidence and analysis of patterns at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz that is (at this point) not yet archived in the link Tony provided. I will also concur with Tony, wearing my hat of an editor active in this topic area for ~15 years, that I have never seen any significant socking until Icewhiz got banned - then boom, dozen+ possible socks appear. Yes, this TA has been problematic for ages, but socking is a new and unwelcome twist here. My only concern is that WP:500/30 may not deal with the more invested socks; ex. the one Tony just blocked, I dream of Maple ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), reached the 500/30 threshold before being blocked. A number of other reported accounts are past 500/30. Extended semi will help weed out some fly-by-night socks, and we had a few of those appear, but I feel, overall, that the other solution ("blocking obvious sock accounts on the proxies in this area until they declare the account owner to ArbCom/the blocking CU") will need to be implemented as well since IMHO most of the disruption (see linked SPI) came from accounts that would not be stopped by 500/30. This TA has sadly seen enough recent socks immune to 500/30 that "guilty until proven innocent" seems necessary for a few years. And after all, we don't generally allow Wikipedia:Open proxies, TOR, or such; and those policies say that users "in good standing" can apply to CU for exemptions per Wikipedia:IP block exemption - so if some Chinese dissident is really interested in this topic area, they can follow the procedure, can't they? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Full support. There are a lot of IPs, "socks", newbies and other unfamiliar "faces" around who are very definitely not Icewhiz, [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] who for whatever reasons rarely get reported.
For the sake of everyone's sanity, get it going and stop complaining about editors who are long gone. [157] François Robere ( talk) 10:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I support making sure Icewhiz socks are finally dealt with, this individual attacked people's families and personal lives in real life and has manipulated numerous articles on Wikipedia that will need years to be corrected, even going as far as claiming that Nazis in Poland only killed Polish "political dissidents". The numerous socks that have been active show a unprecedented level of obsession we know only from some very determined sock masters like English Patriot Man and have already attacked users on their personal talk pages. This shouldn't be happening on encyclopedia. Any form of sock puppetry or meat puppetry for Icewhiz should be dealt with firmly to avoid further manipulations and harassment for the good of the project. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(As perhaps the only commenter so far not really involved.) I think that TonyBallioni may be correct, that of the two options offered, 500/30 is the least disruptive. Some editors may worry that 500/30 is becoming too widespread, but my observation is that it's really only used for the most controversial subject areas, and it's largely on our presentation of information in these areas that Wikipedia will judged by our readers. We need to be as squeaky clean as possible on those topics, so that our reputation for accuracy, neutrality and relevance remains as strong as is possible. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Sarah made a good point here. Also, WP:PC should be considered as an alternative to 30/500. Levivich dubious – discuss 03:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I've been involved in the topic and I'd encourage Arbcom to adopt this amendment. At the very least, SEMI should be applied to remove disruption from IPs in the mainspace, with 30/500 applied to BLPs; see for example my post to RFPP in re: Barbara Engelking:
Still, given the amount of apparently dedicated SPAs and socks, ECP seems the way to go across the board. It works in the Israel-Palestine area and will work in this topic area. It's simply not an area for newbie accounts to cut their teeth on. Good-faith accounts would still be able to post comments and request changes on Talk pages. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't edit in this area, but I have a lot of experience with the 500/30 rule in the ARBPIA domain. Any restriction will discourage some good editors, but overall 500/30 has been of benefit to the area. It doesn't prevent all disruptive socking (a particularly bad one was blocked just recently) but it raises the effort enough to keep away all but the most dedicated. Good editors who want to contribute before achieving 500/30 can use the "edit request" feature on the talk page and such requests that are reasonable are usually performed. That also gives us a chance to teach newbies about things like NPOV and RS before they are allowed into articles by themselves. Zero talk 14:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the scope, it should include events in the aftermath of WW2 such as the 1946 Kielce pogrom, and it should include modern debate on the subject. I don't know if that follows already from "broadly construed" but any motion should make it clear. Zero talk 02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the proposed amendment is that the potential scope is colossal - it effectively prohibits IPs and new registered editors from editing anything to do with World War Two in Europe - because Poles fought almost everywhere in Europe, or from editing any article on Polish towns and cities that have a history section that touches on the Second World War - and all this to stop what appears to be a single editor? If this is passed then the disruptive editors will have won. Note that if low traffic articles are locked then edit requests on the talk pages either won't be seen or will be ignored. If you have to use ECP - then you need to make the scope tight to minimise the damage that it causes, otherwise the disruption to the encyclopedia will be too great. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I would ask Arbcom to consider forwarding Icewhiz's past conduct to T&S. They seem to be a good candidate for a SanFranBan and WMF action if they refuse to comply.
That being said, I am slightly worried by the new-found use of Icewhiz's involvement as a "grandma's nightshirt"-type defense by people who, have more than a decade of history editing in a battleground-like way. Icewhiz's socking and harassment are horrible and deserve a SanFranBan, but he showed a clear nationalistic POV and a deficiency in our article on Warsaw concentration camp. I am worried that rolling out 30/500 here will further entrench that POV here on Wikipedia in ways that Israel-Palestine did not because of the smaller pool of interested people. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
If we must have one of these two awful solutions (and yes, despite a couple of comments, ECP definitely is being used too much), then 30/500 should be applied to the narrowest possible branch. The history of Jews and Antisemitism in Poland, including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed
, is more preferable to the slightly broader one below in the Arbs' section. It's not that it would be applied to every random Polish brigade, but that it will be applied to anything not firmly justified by the case. If it could be handled by usual processes, it should not be handled by a more severe method.
I'd suggest The history of Jews and Antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland.
as the narrowest viable route, and hope it would be considered.
Nosebagbear (
talk) 10:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski wrote an article about Wikipedia for the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza in February. He alleges that Polish nationalists are distorting Holocaust history on the English Wikipedia. The newspaper has a daily print circulation of 107,000 and 110,000 digital subscribers ( as of 2017). Is it not possible that some of these new accounts are people in Poland responding to that article? Poland's Act on the Institute of National Remembrance makes it a civil offence to imply that Poland shared responsibility for the Holocaust, which could explain the use of proxies.
Recent examples of good edits that would not have happened with 30/500 protection in place:
50/300 would have prevented all of the above, and there are many more such examples in this topic area. SarahSV (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.
Enacted - Moneytrees🌴 Talk🌲 Help out at CCI! 18:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Volunteer Marek at 07:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This is an appeal of my topic ban “from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland” as enacted on September 22, 2019, per the portion of the decision which states This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed. [165]
Both myself and User:Icewhiz were topic-banned as a result of the case and we were both subject to an interaction ban. Subsequently for reasons which the committee should be familiar with, and which I mention below, Icewhiz was indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia, and then by the office, from all WikiMedia projects. Also relevant is the fact that WikiMedia’s Trust and Safety team assisted me in addressing the off-wiki harassment that Icewhiz was pursuing against me. [166] [167]
At the outset I would like to bring to the committee’s attention the fact that my topic ban which resulted from the case was NOT based on any issue with the contents of my edit to article space. There were no findings of facts relating to POV or abuse of sources or any other similar issues. Instead, the topic ban was the result of the nature of my interactions with User:Icewhiz, on talk pages and various discussions. In particular I received the TB because the committee found that both of us displayed a battleground attitude, that I was incivil to Icewhiz, that I accused him of “making stuff up” (incidentally, Icewhiz’s own topic ban was based at least partly on the committee having similar issues with Icewhiz’s edits, particularly on BLPs [168]). At same time the committee acknowledged that Icewhiz had made false accusations against me, [169] made ethnically derogatory remarks, used inflammatory rhetoric and attempted to make extremely insulting insinuations against me. [170]
Essentially, the committee did not find anything wrong with my edits but did issue the topic ban for my incivil attitude towards him. This is understandable as I acknowledge that I did not always react well to Icewhiz’s provocations, especially given their extremely serious nature. I want to stress that Icewhiz was the only person that has managed to provoke such a reaction in me, and that even committee members acknowledged that there were no such problems with my editing outside of this narrow dispute (Arbitrator PreMeditatedChaos wrote in one of the relevant Findings of Fact: even Icewhiz has pointed out that VM's behavior is not an issue except in this topic area [171])
As such, in addition to more than a full year having elapsed, with Icewhiz being indefinitely banned from all WikiMedia project the reason for the topic ban has ceased to exist. In fact, given the subsequent events – the campaign of harassment that Icewhiz launched against me and numerous other Wikipedia editors (including several admins) – I had considered appealing the topic ban even before the one year deadline elapsed. In the end, because I was (and still am) very busy in real life with work and family issue, I decided that I might as well wait out the full year.
Even though Icewhiz is no longer on Wikipedia (although there was extensive socking in early 2020, however, the arbitration motion you guys passed in May [172] which implemented the 500/30 restriction seems to have been quite successful in curbing it) I do want to note that I have had quite a bit of time to rethink and reflect upon the events leading up to the arbitration case and the topic ban. I fully admit that I overreacted at the time and should have worked harder at keeping my cool. Lack of subsequent issues (*) in the year following should show that.
At the same time I also want to mention that my overall engagement with Wikipedia has been substantially reduced. This is mostly due to being much busier in real life for reasons related to the covid pandemic.
Thanks for the consideration and take care of yourselves
(*) In the interest of full disclosure I should note that early on, about a week or two after the enactment of the topic ban, I did violate it and was given a short block as a result of an AE report, enacted by Bradv. The topic ban went into effect on September 22, 2019. The block was on October 10, 2019. I have not been sanctioned for any violations of the topic ban since then (more than a year) and that instance happened in part due to my misunderstanding of the scope of the ban (the edit concerned an author’s work about World War I, although the same author was also known for writing about World War II)
@ Beeblebrox: Honestly, since this was in April/May of last year, which is eons in Wikipedia time I don't even remember off the top off my head what this was about (apparently, Levivich couldn't remember it either since he had to go do digging for it only after your prompted them to follow up their vague accusations). Checking back through history, it seems that with regards to his diff 2 and diff 3 (same thing) there was an allegation that an edit of my violated the topic ban. I thought at the time they didn't since my edit concerned POST WAR Polish history, which would be outside the scope ban. There was some discussion on the issue, with finally User:El C saying that "the topic ban violation is not clear cut" [173]. Basically, while my edit was NOT about the topic there was a chunk of (newly added!) material in the relevant article that was (which I didn't touch, as El C explicitly noted "Volunteer Marek limits himself just to a discussion of the post-war time period (which he has been doing)"). However, he also pointed out that the fact that a different portion of the article dealt with WW2 would make it difficult for me to discuss some of the relevant issues on talk w/o violating the TB. That was a fair point. As a result I said ok, just to be sure, I won't edit the article anymore [174].
Sometimes it's very difficult to know what is covered and what is not covered by a given topic ban, especially since, as I noted elsewhere, World War 2 casts such a huge shadow over Polish history and culture that editing almost anything related to Poland will sooner or later bring you close to that topic. If this here was a topic ban violation (and it's not clear it was) then it was inadvertent one and I think I proceeded correctly - after it was brought to an admin's attention and they said it was "borderline", I disengaged from the article. I haven't edited it since. The matter was resolved and it hasn't come up again.
Levivich was NOT involved in this dispute in any capacity. I'm not sure why he feels that he in particular has to bring it here or what his motivation for doing so is. Volunteer Marek 01:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am not able to support this appeal, because I do not think it would be a net positive for the project or the topic area. Just over a week ago, they inserted this unhelpful comment on a dispute that they are not involved in. [175] Note, no evidence that I was edit warring was presented, nor did VM file a complaint against edit warring at another page, to be decided by an administrator. (I believe this is a spill-over from a content dispute on List of genocides by death toll, where VM is arguing for the inclusion of Polish Operation as a genocide. Arguably this skirts their topic ban because of the proximity to World War II.) ( t · c) buidhe 19:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I was going to stay out of this, but it's just not true (as arbs state below) that VM hasn't violated his topic ban since Bradv's block in October 2019. He's been warned for tban violations since then (for example, see his UTP history). There are also AE/AN/ANI threads in the last year; I don't remember offhand if they were for problems in or outside the topic area, or if they had any merit. But neither I nor any other member of the community should have to go digging to present this history to Arbcom. VM ought to list all of these things for the arbs to review. Levivich harass/ hound 16:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The topic ban is one of the few remaining vestiges of the Icewhiz-era. It made mild sense as a way to prevent BATTLEGROUND that Icewhiz was creating and too often goading VM into engaging him (IIRC it came as a set combo with the interaction ban and Ice received the mirror equivalents of both of these as well). Now that Icewhiz is gone (the main account, as he still continues socking and real-life harassment and manipulation, for which he was site banned - Trust&Safety can provide further details if any ArbCom member requires them, I am sure) it makes no sense to keep VM restricted; all it does is that it still empowers Icewhiz behind the scenes and as such it is one of his 'victories' we can and should undo to move on.
Regarding preceding comments by Buidhe and Levivich, they are either disappointing petty attempts to keep people one disagreed with under the heel and out of one's hair, or worse, evidence of proxying for Icewhiz. Levivich has not been much active in the topic areas VM frequents/ed, and I think neither had interacted much with VM, yet now we see some obscure diffs from articles they never edited or discussions they did not participate in (!) concerning editor they should not care about. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I commend members of the Committee for expressing views in favour of, as well as an immediate motion, to rescind the ban. That is the right call. Not least because I don't think there's any indication that Volunteer Marek is likely to edit disruptively in the topic area. I'd like to also add the following emphasis to the record: the level of harassment that Volunteer Marek has endured (that I know of) is so beyond the pale, it's truly sickening. So needless to say, wide latitude should be extended to him for any past misconduct or near-misconduct which were directly impacted by this sinister and nefarious abuse. Anyway, looks like all is going well as far as this amendment is concerned — apologies in advance to VM in case I just jinxed it! El_C 05:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that removing this topic ban, imposed when the editor was under extreme harassment by the banned Icewhiz, is a good thing for the encyclopedia, and I hope that the arbs will come to the same conclusion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The now-banned Icewhiz's misbehaviors on Wikipedia, prior to his ban and since, have been truly egregious and should be counted as an extenuating circumstance to some of VM's responses to Icewhiz's provocative actions. I believe it is time to welcome VM back to a subject area to which he can make substantial contributions.
Thank you.
Nihil novi ( talk) 22:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I am a great fan of TBANs, which usually work well to protect controversial areas of the project subject to Arbitration cases from egregious disruption by POV-pushers. However, I don't think this description applies to VM's behaviour that led to the TBAN. Considering Icewhiz has been ejected, and VM doesn't appear to have clearly breached the TBAN, I think Arbs should accept VM's request in good faith. Of course, in the tradition of supplying people with enough rope, VM should be under no illusions that any future disruption in the TBAN space will likely result in an indefinite TBAN. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Remedy 4b of Antisemitism in Poland ("Volunteer Marek topic-banned") is rescinded.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Girth Summit at 15:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The background to this request is in the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Volunteer (book), and there is some further discussion at User talk:DGG#Request for help with a request for clarification. I am not asking for the committee to make a decision on the specific source under discussion at those locations; however, the discussions seem to have reached something of an impasse because of people's differing understandings of how we should interpret the remedy's wording. I am therefore asking the committee to consider three questions:
In the above-linked discussions, a number of different possible interpretations of that phrase have been put forward. Some have suggested that its intention is to allow the use of any book which is written about an academic subject (such as history). Others have argued that it allows the use of any book that is written using academic methodologies. I myself have interpreted it more narrowly, believing that the intention was to restrict sources to work intended for an academic audience, which would usually (but not quite always) have been written by an academic and published by an academic press. It seems unlikely to me that the committee would have intended to restrict any periodicals aside from peer-reviewed scholarly journals, but then to allow the use of popular histories and/or heroic biographies which, however well-researched, are not 'academically focused' in my understanding of the phrase.
Please note that I have intentionally not named any other editors as parties to this request, simply to avoid giving anyone any unnecessary alarm. I have no reason to believe that any of the parties to the discussions I've linked to are acting in anything but good faith, we have simply reached an impasse because of our different interpretations of this particular phrase. I will notify all users involved in the discussions about this request. GirthSummit (blether) 15:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
First of all, kudos to Girth Summit for the no-fault design of this ARCA (and thanks for letting me know about it). I see you! Now, I don't presume to speak for the Committee, about WP:APLRS or whatever (except when I do, often!), but questions 1 + 2 just seem like an obvious yes to me. It is question 3 that is really of interest here, I think. Elucidation from the Committee on this would serve well to better editorial practices, content-wise, and admin ones, enforcement-wise.
Finally, returning to questions 1+2: it is no secret that I strongly believe that the darkest chapter in our species' history demands WP:MEDRS-like sourcing requirements (APLRS' community-passed sourcing requirement counterpart). I think this was well within Committee discretion to mandate, and one of the best and most important Arbitration decisions bar none, in fact. Especially, considering the intensive whitewashing efforts by the Polish state, as can be seen in its Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance. El_C 16:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
'serial killer'-liketo describe any editor — even banned ones, even Icewhiz. That is totally inappropriate, and a BLP violation. Anyway, I mentioned before how I felt Icewhiz [et al.?] was more of a symptom (of key changes to Polish law and to the aims of the Polish state), but I don't really wish to expound and expand on that in this forum (if at all).
First of all thanks to GirthSummit for opening this and notifying everyone.
- Editors removing a source for failing to comply with this restriction must specify the reason it fails to comply. Sources thus removed may not be reinstated without prior discussion.
- This is meant to encourage discussion and prevent edit warring, but in a way that's flexible enough to keep the process short and make "stonewalling" difficult (thanks to editors who helped hone this).
- Repeated removal of compliant sources under a pretense of non-compliance is equivalent to repeated insertion of non-compliant sources.
- This will not prevent editors from removing compliant sources for legitimate reasons (OR, DUE, BLP...), only from abusing APLRS (thanks to Paul Siebert for proposing this).
François Robere ( talk) 16:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Added explanation. François Robere ( talk) 22:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
We're at a point where the back of the dispute has been brokenHardly. A short while after WP:APL was concluded three other editors were blocked or T-banned; [186] [187] [188] [189] in June another one was blocked (the imposing admin, who was knee-deep in the TA, has since been desysopped); [190] in August an I-ban was imposed between three editors; [191] in February an editor was
Consider, for example, the technical specifications of a Polish naval ship from WWII... any reliable source for naval history should doYes, it should. We've discussed it before, and there's little reason not to see eg. Jane's or Lloyd's as "reputable publishers" under APLRS.
On #1. I believe that any sourcing/content restrictions should be decided by community, just as WP:MEDRS was developed. The discussion would help to properly decide if such restrictions are actually needed and improve the quality of such restrictions. This sourcing restriction by Arbcom arbitrary changes Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of the "five pillars". Is not it something for community?
On #2: Subject areas are different. Yes, I can understand the rationale behind the WP:MEDRS ("Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information. For this reason, all biomedical information must be based...".), even though I do not necessarily agree with it. Now, let's imagine not allowing journalistic sources and original peer reviewed articles (as WP:MEDRS does) in the area of history and politics. That would be a disaster. This is because many notable but less significant sub-subjects are covered only (or mostly) in such excluded sources. Sure, if there are scholarly and non-scholarly sources, then the scholarly ones are preferred, but this is already written in the policy.
On #3 (@CaptainEek) and #2. Yes, we must use the best sources. But the best sources depend on the specific narrowly defined subject or question that needs to be described. For example, the best and most detailed biography of person X can be a book written for the general public by someone without a PhD degree (just like the "Volunteer"). Moreover, a specific question or aspect can frequently be described in detail only in a few journalistic publications and mentioned in passing in several books. But with such sourcing restriction, such content simply can not be included to a page, even though it frequently should. Furthermore, it is important to use not only the best sources, but all RS on the subject (we are not talking about questionable sources here). By removing certain types of RS, we betray WP:NPOV and make our pages more biased. I agree with DGG.
Replies to comments by others
|
---|
|
I'm not opposed to the sourcing restriction in principle but I do have a few comments and observations:
With regard to Francois Robere's proposals above - #1 is okay, conditional on the restriction remaining in place, but #2 ("Repeated removal of compliant sources under a pretense of non-compliance is equivalent to the repeated insertion of non-compliant sources.") is a VERY bad idea. There are all kinds of reasons why a text based on a source which meets sourcing requirements should still be removed - WP:UNDUE, WP:COPYVIO, cherry picking, misrepresentation, using a source as a springboard for WP:OR. We don't even have anything like that for regular RS (having a reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient reason for inclusion). This would turn it into an administrative nightmare. Volunteer Marek 21:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: - in terms of diffs to support my point #1 above, it's not so much diffs as examples. But let me try (this is going to be a bit of a work in progress, since I'm busy and there's a lot of examples here).
@ Maxim: User:Levivich below asks what content is being excluded on the basis of this restriction which could otherwise be included. Well, if Levivich actually looked at the edits under dispute, the answer to their quary would be easy to find. In this edit, the account "Bob Not Snob" removed 11k+ worth of text from the Witold Pilecki article. In their edit summary they explicitly claimed they were removing this material because of the ALPRS restriction. So what kind of content was removed because, according to Bob Not Snob accout, it "violated APLRS"?
And so on. It goes on for awhile. I mean, it's a pretty thorough gutting of the article, removing 11k of text, most of it non-controversial stuff like the fact that he went to a school and what units he served in. It's hard to see this as actually constructive. Rather it seems like someone using APLRS as an excuse to make an article look like crap because they don't like the subject. Like, you can't actually write "bad stuff" about Pilecki, because the guy was in fact a hero, and the sources - even the newer "revisionist" ones like Fleming and Cuber - are pretty clear on that, so instead you gut the article by removing basic, non-controversial, biographical info and try and make it look like shit. Or maybe it's WP:BAIT so that if someone reverts these edits as "non-controversial" you can use it as an excuse to file a spurious WP:AE report (and there's been a ton of those) and try to get someone sanctioned.
So yes, this restriction is VERY MUCH being used and abused to remove non-controversial info from article. Not a hypothetical. Volunteer Marek 02:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@ El C: Quote: " Other countries also espouse WP:FRINGE content, too. But a country, say, like Iran (twice the population of Poland), for example, does so to a far lesser extent" - El C, I'm sorry but this claim is completely bonkers. Comparing Poland's government or situation to that of Iran is what's "FRINGE" here. Wayyyy offf the charts. There certainly are serious issue with the current Polish government's actions but it's not even in the same league. Hell, according to Reporters without Borders, in terms of Freedom of Press, Poland ranks significantly above... Israel [211] (Poland # 62, Israel # 88, Iran # 173). I think a good chunk of the problem in this topic area is folks who bring in their preconceptions and prejudices to the editing (and sometimes administratin') without actually checking facts first (I can give more examples of this). Volunteer Marek 17:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
User:CaptainEek the rationale for your oppose is that " By limiting the possible remedies we can implement, we weaken ArbCom ". I'm sorry but are you suggesting that ArbCom should have unlimited power? There is a very good reason, as alluded to by User:Risker (former arb com member) why the committee's power - like any other rule making institution's in a functional society - is circumscribed. I think you're also flipping the narrative here. A more accurate way of describing the situation would be "by imposing remedies that have not traditionally been within our remit, we are making ArbCom even more powerful". I find this kind of seemingly power-hungry attitude in an arb deeply worrying. Volunteer Marek 15:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
User:CaptainEek - as others have pointed out, ruling on content, which is what this is, has traditionally been outside the scope of the committee's "power". This fundamentally changes that. If you want "more tools" then that's fine but these should be developed in agreement with what the committee's powers are suppose to be, rather than just expending the power.
In regard to Francois Robere's comment here. Unintentionally, this actually is an argument for the opposite view. First, it's not true that Pilecki being a "volunteer" is only uncontroversial in Poland. The book under discussion was written by a British author with help from American and Israeli researchers. The other book used in the article (confusingly, also called "Volunteer" but with a different subtitle) is by an Italian historian. Pilceki as "volunteer" is uncontroversial, period. Not "just in Poland" but among standard historical works. Yes, there's some revisionist "new history" articles which seem to pull back at that view somewhat but it's those articles that are - because they are new that ... maybe not "FRINGE" but non-mainstream. Likewise, FR also claims " What you don't see is the long list of blogs, websites, SPS, politicians, and other unqualified sources which would've been fought for under RS". Nah. This is some version of WP:CRYSTALBALLing. In fact when these sources exist, they are removed on straight forward grounds and nobody objects. The controversy really IS about sources like the Volunteer book. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I will give an example from another area. In the Raoul Wallenberg article it was previously claimed that Wallenberg saved 100,000 Jews. This claim is made in many popular works that would ordinarily qualify as WP:RS, such as New York Times, [212] [213] popular books [214] [215], and a resolution that passed US Congress. [216] But peer reviewed scholarship disputes this claim, saying the actual number of people saved was <10,000. If popular sources are given equal weight as academic sources, our article will end up saying something that's factually incorrect. (I think this kind of mythification is especially common when someone is considered a "hero"). In the Hungary topic area, such a requirement isn't formally necessary because no one has been trying to override the academic sources with popular ones; however, if that started to happen I would support a sourcing restriction there as well. Because in the Poland area there are many examples of editors trying to use deficient sources to trump peer-reviewed ones, (see above) it is necessary to restrict to WP:SCHOLARSHIP only for claims about what actually happened in the past. ( t · c) buidhe 19:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
This entire remedy should be revoked as unnecessary. First, regarding issue #2, no, it is not necessary, nor was it ever so. WP:RSN exists, is active, and was never swamped with discussions of works related to this topic area. Nor was there any general RfC on this or such. While the ArbCom finding did say "RSN and talk page RfCs have often failed to settle these questions", unfortunately no data or justification for this conclusion were ever indicated, nor was I able to find even a single party making such a claim at the Evidence and Workshop page, where instead, several RSN/RfC discussions were linked - and described as having successfully resolved the issues raised (generally concluding that several sources were unreliable). The problem was thus solved without the need for any extra remedies. Existing policies (RS, REDFLAG, FRINGE, UNDUE, etc.) work well enough and ArbCom should have simply reminded us of them; there was no need to "reinvent the wheel".
Second, regarding issue #1, I do have serious concerns about whether it is ArbCom's (or consequently's AE's) role to judge what sources are acceptable. I am afraid that ArbCom reached too far and this is causing major problems, many more than it attempted to solve. It is in fact encouraging disruption in the topic area (instead of preventing it), empowering disruptive socks, and scaring away established content creators. Proof below.
What the remedy has caused is that sources perfectly acceptable in every other area of the project are being challenged, with editors increasingly bypassing RSN/RfC and just claiming 'they violate my view of what academically focused' means. Consider the former FA Witold Pilecki, where a new account (registered just when the last ArbCom was ending...) not previously active in this TA suddenly appeared and effectively gutted the article, removing about half of the content with the edit summary "After discussion, WP:APLRS" (and did so again here). First, the removed content was uncontroversial. Second, the removed sources included the recent, award-winning, first-ever, English-language monograph (biography) of the subject, written by a respected journalist (aided by numerous scholars), published by a HarperCollins/CustomHouse which is a "reputable publisher" (wording from APLRS itself!), a book which received many positive reviews ( The Economist, WSJ, etc.), including by scholars, and which would be acceptable for any other topic area (my reading of the RSN discussion on this book is 'reliable, but may or may not meet APLRS, depending on what one understands by "academically focused"). Sigh. While this is a specific case, I use it to show that if such sources are not allowed, then we are forcing editors to either use hard to access and verify (and older) Polish-language sources or simply not to include helpful and uncontroversial information in the article (since no, there are better English-language sources). In either case, we are making it extremely difficult to write articles in Polish WWII history, simply because a few editors, most now retired or banned, have used some low-quality sources in the past (sources which are now considered unreliable, after discussions at RSN, and that nobody is restoring).
Further, while the Holocaust topic area is controversial it is no more so than many others (Isreal-Palestine, American politics, Balkans, Scientology, whatever). And most certainly, the remedy's broad scope - the entire Polish WWII area - is way too large, as it affects numerous articles on uncontroversial topics like minor battles, ships, or biographies, where next to no English sources exist, and due to poor digitalization of Polish literary and academic corpus up to date, history-focused newspaper or magazine articles are still very useful (of course, if contradicted by scholarly research, they should be discarded - but we don't need a remedy for this, RS already has this logic covered). Strictly interpreted, we should ban authors of totally uncontroversial articles like Defense of Katowice, Railway sabotage during World War II or SMS M85 and thousands of others, which heavily rely on mass-market books or educational websites or like. A lot of valuable articles about Polish military history can be sourced from books in Polish published by the Bellona Publishing House, which published numerous monographs on particular battles of the '39 invasion of Poland, and which often are the one and only monograph for said battle in existence; but Bellona's books are directed at the mass market of people interested in military history, so are they "academically focused"? A great source I've used over the past few years is Bellona's specialized encyclopedia Boje polskie 1939-1945: przewodnik encyklopedyczny, edited by historian Krzysztof Komorowski, but surely, encyclopedias are not 'academically focused'. My recent milhist A-class article, Battle of Hel, relies on this source heavily (as well as on another monograph from Bellona about the fighting on the Polish coast, Derdej's Westerplatte, Oksywie, Hel 1939) - is it ArbCom's intention to prevent such content from being written, and to punish editors like myself for writing it? Oh, and just in case someone thinks we can limit the damage by narrowing the scope to the Holocaust, you do realize we often use, among others, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum webpages, like its Holocaust Encyclopedia, as a source? For me, it is a much less "academically focused" source than the mentioned book from HarperCollins (for example, the book has endnotes, which USHMM's pages usually do not). The remedy, which was intended to discourage fringe, red-flag claims, threatens to lay waste to the entire topic area. This was already mentioned during previous requests for clarification by MILHIST editors like Nick-D here, Peacemaker67 here, Nigel_Ish here, Nug here, as well as former arbitrator DGG here, just to name a few, and what was feared a year ago is happening right now.
This is all compounded by the threat of being reported to AE for simply adding a book one did not realize came from a non-academic publisher (assuming that they are not allowed since the remedy does clearly allow "reputable publishers"). In other words, this encourages disruptive editors to create throw-away accounts which just need to meet 500/30 and then they can report established editors they have a grudge against to AE for using a source that may or may not meet the fuzzy definition of "academically focused". Doesn't work? Create a new sock, rinse and repeat. The sock wins if it manages to get a single ruling in its favor (which ruins the reputation of the established editors for years, and likely topic bans them too), or if the targeted editors give up and leave the topic arena. Win-win for disruption, lose-lose for the encyclopedia.
The current remedy creates an unfair burden on the editors in this topic area. It does so by creating a chilling effect with the threat of 'if you use a source that is accepted anywhere else you may be reported to AE and topic banned or worse". It discourages experienced editors to write about Polish-Jewish WWII relations or even Polish WWII history in general which is obviously bad for the project (see comments here) and encourages aggressive socking (creation of throw-away accounts to add possibly problematic sources or reporting established editors to AE).
Lastly, re #3. If the remedy is retained, ArbCom needs to clarify what the term 'academically focused' it invented (or adopted from following its invention by a single admin) means (and good luck with that...). The recent RSN discussion has shown that many editors disagree on this, which is compounded by the fact that many participants are not academics and make claims like 'narrative style means the work cannot be academically focused' which is wrong ( narrative ethnography is an academically recognized style of writing). In the end, I strongly recommend that discussion of sources should be left to RSN, not to few well-meaning admins who, while experts on Wikipedia, are not always experts on things like 'what is academic' or not. ArbCom and AE are overworked already, those venues don't need broader competencies and increasing workload that comes with them (like this very request for clarification, third in the series about that particular remedy). RSN has been and still is perfectly capable of weeding out FRINGE sources and reminding people about REDFLAG, UNDUE, and relevant policies. We don't need the threat of 'a sock will bring you to AE' hanging over people who want to use an in-depth monograph, the only one in existence for its subject, just published by a non-academic publisher, or edit an uncontroversial article about a German minelayer which sunk off the coast of Poland in '39 referencing Jane's Fighting Ships or a book by Steven Zaloga/ Osprey Publishing, for pity's sake. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Responding to Piotrus' ping. I am on the record in the original discussion (linked in Piotrus' contribution alongside my username) as opposing, as a matter of principle, the incursion of ArbCom into content issues which this remedy represents. It IS a content issue, and we have processes for dealing with them that don't involve ArbCom. The remedy should be vacated until and unless ArbCom's scope is widened to include content as well as conduct issues. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I think sourcing restriction is a very good idea, but this tool sometimes may be harmful. The core problem here is an indiscriminate approach. According to WP:APLRS, the whole WWII period is covered, be it a history of some small Polish town, or a technical article about Polish tanks. Is it needed? Of course, it is totally redundant. And "Polish" users quite legitimately object to that. However, there is one aspect that really requires our attention: Polish-Jewish relations during WWII. Social processes in modern Poland lead to resurrection of nationalist myths, and many Polish sources describe the WWII events at somewhat different angle that Western sources do. That is especially true for newspapers, blogs, popular web sites and other sources that are seen as marginally acceptable per our content policy. Normally, we allow that type sources, but in this situation, the abundance of that type sources and high activity of "Polish" editors (I use quotation marks, because I speak about their POV, not nationality) creates a situation when the description of Polish-Jewish relations during WWII in English Wikipedia differs considerably from what majority of scholarly sources write. During the discussion of the Antisemitism in Poland case, I made a post that drawn attention of professional US historians and journalists. They contacted me, and they expressed a concern about English Wikipedia bias. In connection to that, I think it is absolutely correct to keep the restrictions, because they deprive POV pushers of the main tool: their sources.
Moreover, I propose to think about sourcing restrictions as a universal tool for extinguishing edit wars. Usually, high quality sources use more cautious wording and factually correct statement, so if only top quality sources are used by both parties, that decrease the tension. According to my experience, the better sources some user uses, the more they are prone to arguments, and the reasier to reach a consensus.
There is one problem with this approach: these sourcing restrictions may be used for gaming the system (reporting a user who made an innocent edit using questionable source). I propose to think how to amend these restrictions to minimize a possibility of gaming. One possibility is to remove restrictions from any content that is not related to Polish-Jewish relationships.
With regard to the arguments about "content disputes", I have a question: what criteria discriminate cautious, experienced and polite POV-pusher from a user who is involved in a long but sincere content dispute? I think it is totally impossible to draw such a line without a careful analysis of arguments and sources. According to my experience, experienced POV-pushers are totally invisible for AE admins, and that fundamental reason is that AE admins have no necessary knowledge and time to carefully analyse the evidences, each or which, taken separately, look totally innocent.
With regard to User:Girth Summit's questions #1 - 3, my opinion is as follows:
1. Sourcing restrictions may be a better idea than topic bans. First, all sanctions are supposed to be more preventive than punitive, and most disruption is associated with usage of poor sources (it is hard to edit disruptively using only academically focused sources). Second, if a disruptive user has to use only good sources, that will requite more efforts to obtain them and read. In addition, it increase one's educational level, and may lead to correction of their POV. I am telling that based on my own experience.
2. The remedy may perfectly prevent disruption in many cases. And I see no harm in that remedy for high importance history topics. I would say more: I de facto am writing Wikipedia articles using only academically focused sources (exceptions are very rare), and I don't think that self-imposed restriction negatively impacts my work.
3. To answer how these rules should be applied, let me first explain how I select "academically focused sources". I use the following procedure: (i) no googling (only the sources available at google scholar, jstor and few other specialised databases are acceptable); (ii) if a book or article is more than 2-3 years old and there is no citations, it should be avoided; (iii) journal impact factor must be taken into account; (iv) for books, check reviews at jstor and gscholars: no reviews or negative reviews are an indication of possible problems. As I already wrote elsewhere, this my approach described as quite adequate by Brendan Luyt, the scholar who is studying the mechanisms of improving Wikipedia credibility. How all of that can be applied to the Polish-Jewish area? I think, if some user expresses a concern about some source that does not meet the above criteria, it is better to remove it. If another party resists to that, they are supposed to prove the criteria i-iv are met. If they failed to do that and continue using the disputed source, a topic ban must follow.
The criterion i failed.
The criterion ii failed.
The criterion iv failed
The enforcement of these rules is straightforward. Before I describe the procedure, let me give the example when some user was accused of violating sourcing restriction in an incorrect way (and that is why the request was declined). Instead, a correct procedure should be as follows. The accusing user was supposed to:
In my opinion, this procedure can be easily implemented, and it will not require too much work from enforcing admins.
Last, but not least. The attempts to remove the sources that clearly meet the criteria "i - iv" should be considered equally serious violation, and it may be reported at AE too.
@ Maxim:@ BDD: We already have a policy saying that highly controversial topics require multiple high quality sources. If ArbCom answers "Yes" to the questions 1 and 2, that just confirms the obvious fact that the Holocaust in Poland is a highly controversial topic, and many claims about Polish-Jewish relations that challenge mainstream views (an that is exactly what happening now, when many Polish sources seem to contradict to what Western scholarly literature says) need to be supported by multiple high-quality sources. Therefore, the only value of the ArbCom's sourcing restrictions would be a clarification of criteria outlined in WP:REDFLAG. In connection to that, Maxim's explanation seems a really valuable response.
Maxim's interpretation seems very close to what I describe above, and to K.e.coffman's deinition. However, I still have some questions/comments:
To that, I would add the following. Many journals exist that have all traits of peer-reviewed journals, but that publish the works authored by a narrow local group of authors, who perform "peer-reviewing" of each other's works. Formally, they fit a definition of "peer-reviewed publication", but they may be totally marginal. As a rule, these journals have no impact factor (of an impact factor below 1), and the articles published there are not cited by the authors who do not belong to that group. Obviously, the quality of content of those journals can be very low, significantly lower than the quality of publications in mainstream newspapers. Meanwhile, your rule allows the former and forbids the latter. In my opinion, "peer-reviewed" articles published in low level journals (the journals with low or absent impact factor) should be allowed only if they have been cited by some other scholarly publication, and that reference contained no obvious criticism. With regard to the User:Nigel Ish's argument, I think all of that can be easily resolved by specifying that the above source restrictions are applicable only to potentially controversial claims (the claims that have been challenged by at least one user, who substantiated them with appropriate sources). We all are reasonable people, and we do not expect that a user who added a marginally acceptable source telling about technical details or combat history of some Polish warship may be reported to AE. I think, a procedure of source removal should be as follows: "I (user name) find the claim supported by the source X controversial, and it contradicts to commonly accepted views expressed in mainstream scholarly literature. I am removing the source X and request other users not to restore that information unless it is supported by multiple high quality sources (as defined by WP:REDFLAG and ArbCom's decision)". Obviously, a user who is removing non-controversial or purely technical information from the articles about Poland under a pretext that the sources are marginally acceptable can be accused of gaming a system. Therefore, I find Nigel Ish's argument somewhat artificial.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Maxim: What you say about REDFLAG is correct, however, can you please explain me something? The Holocaust in Poland, as well as the EE topic in general is under standard DS. Among other restrictions it means that all users who are active in those topics must meet expectations, including "to comply with all applicable policies and guidelines". WP:REDFLAG IS a part of our policy, and that means REDFLAG violations committed in ANY topic covered by DS can be reported at AE and, ideally, they must be treated as seriously as personal attacks or topic ban violations. REDFLAG is quite concrete, and in some aspects it is more rigorous than the restrictions that we are discussing here. It says exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, whereas the restrictions we are discussing do not contain the word "multiple". Had REDFLAG worked properly, this discussion as whole would not be needed, because ALL content that is a focus of hot debates is usually found in some single source (or a couple of sources) AND most sources are of borderline quality, which means they all could be eliminated per REDFLAG. But that usually does not happen, or it is achieved at a very high cost. Moreoever, I know no examples when some user was subjected to sanctions for the REDFLAG violation. Of course, I may be wrong (I am not reading all AE requests), but I am not familiar with such cases. I have a feeling that admins prefer to treat such type cases as "content disputes". That means the problem is probably not in DS themselves (it seems general DS are quite sufficient to prevent lion's share of disruption), but in their implementation. Maybe, instead of imposing new and new restrictions, it probably makes sense to think what can be done for proper implementation of existing restrictions? What if ArbCom issues an explanation that REDFLAG violations can and should be reported at AE, and admins should not treat such violations as "content disputes"?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 02:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I am very concerned about using newspaper sources and similar for factual claims. Still, at the same time, there is nothing wrong with using them to source uncontroversial matters about events that happened after the war, correct? At Witold Pilecki's article, for example, a new editor, invoking this remedy, eliminated nearly the whole of the section about his legacy [218], which initially concerned things like monuments erected or posthumous awards received after 1989. This is just one of many examples I can think of where this remedy is being severely abused. Instead of preventing the addition of fringe theories that are generally restrained by WP:RS anyway, it is used to justify removing relevant and uncontroversial content someone doesn't like. The very existence of WP:RSN tells that many years after WP:RS was adopted, we are still debating what "reliable" is. To invent a new term, "academically focused" is an absurdity. The community has difficulty handling "reliable" without burdening it with clarifying a new notion. And such an endeavor is impossible anyway. We could just call for the use of "very reliable" or "best quality" sources - all meaningless qualifications that invite subjective opinions like "this award is good enough" - "no, it is not" or "one review in a peer-reviewed source is enough"-"no, we need seven" or "the author needs to have a Ph.D."-"no, Ph.D. is not enough". He needs a Nobel Prize". And worst, the remedy means that the question of what is reliable is no longer discussed at RSN, where at least most editors are reasonably experienced with the concept of "reliability". Now we ask administrators at AE, many of whom are not content creators, nor academics, to make such a call. At first, I assumed this remedy might help, but now I realize it was a prescription for failure. It's a typical "good intention" that, in reality, is only useful for paving the proverbial hell. We need to bite this in the back. In the end, whether the remedy is helpful or not can be judged by looking at its impact. What sources did it exclude that otherwise would be allowed? Right now, I can only think of the recent case concerning the Volunteer (book). The book has been written in consultation with many professional historians, was published by a major publishing house, gained a notable award, and got a significant and overwhelmingly positive reception. Is this indeed a source the remedy was supposed to rule out? If the answer is no, then the remedy is broken. Last thought - I am pretty unsure whether that source (Volunteer book) is allowed or not - the RSN discussion reads like no consensus, so what's the default ruling here? Use it, get reported to AE, and see how the dice roll? And since the source is used to reference content, and if removed, said content could be too, per WP:V (which clearly states "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed"), how is this remedy, or any imaginable AE ruling based on it, not a verdict on content? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
There are two separate topics here: one is the role of arb com with respect to issues involving content. The other is how to determine what sources to use, with respect to either our general preference for academic content, or a community or other mandate to use only or preferentially academic content in a particular situation.
The present situation enables disruptive or frivolous editors and sock-puppets to report established editors, thereby potentially discouraging established editors from adding otherwise valid sources that could be questioned on flimsy or bogus grounds – grounds whose inadequacy may easily escape the body being appealed to.
The remedy posits the vague criterion of an "academically-focused" source, which has been described as showing "a superior research quality in the tradition of the best academics". Who determines what is "superior", "tradition", or "best"?
There are already satisfactory long-standing mechanisms in place to guide discussions about the appropriateness of sources, without our having to employ impracticable mechanisms.
Respectfully, Nihil novi ( talk) 07:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Blocked |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thank you Girth Summit of notifying me of this request that appears to be coming after Piotrus requested it. I am mostly uninvolved in this topic, and have become involved after a few discussions at RSN on dubious sources and APLRS. From my recent experience this topic is highly toxic, unwelcoming, and full of editors who are pushing the cult of the " doomed soldiers". These "doomed soldiers" were mostly bandits, common thieves, murderers, and in some cases mass murderers of minorities. The nationalist right pushes them because they were also anti-communist. The problem isn't limited to hate against Jewish minorities, Romuald Rajs is known as a mass murderer of Belarusian people, yet the article prior to cleanup presented a picture of him almost being innocent. I cleaned it using academic sources, yet some of this questionable content was returned afterwards. To give context to the present, Rajs is used as a symbol by haters in the east of Poland, his name is sprayed on the houses of Belarusian people living in Poland today to intimidate them. My experience has been that subpar sourcing isn't the only problem here, the greater problem is that specific editors are willing to argue that these subpar sources are acceptable. I don't think User:Paul Siebert calling them "Polish" is correct, as it isn't Polish in my eyes to do this, and some of them are not Polish. My Very Best Wishes made this recent edit in which he restored information sourced to Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza. This is an "anti-socialist" webpage or blog, that is right-wing extremist, and is not a reliable source for anything. He then posted on my talk page saying "I do not know Polish".
This specific group of editors shows up and make facetious arguements, on the level that black is white, regarding any source they consider furthers their cause. Using heroic myths as sources for " doomed soldiers" is flat out unacceptable. Maybe the committee should authorize sanctions against this group that is making repeated false arguments?
|
I am somewhat inexperienced in these matters, so I will remain in my place and keep it short. I think that the WP:RSN discussion shows that the language of the WP:APLRS rule is not detailled enough for a meaningful consensus to emerge. This is not surprising: people can’t even agree on the meaning of basic words, [1] let alone unusual terminology like this one, let alone when tensions run high. So I support Girth Summit’s 3rd proposition.-- JBchrch ( talk) 11:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Questions 1 and 2 seem like an obvious "yes". There is no sense in which the vexed issue of antisemitism in Poland is anywhere near calmed down yet. The remedy's sourcing requirement has materially improved the quality of these articles, but not the inflammatory nature of the constant disputes between the warring parties. Let's remember to separate the two. The continuing battle between the two factions does not mean that the remedies are unnecessary or ineffective.
Question 3 comes down to a subject-specific interpretation of WP:RS, and can normally be resolved by looking at the remedy in its entirety: 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. That normally includes any legitimate mainstream scholarship, and will exclude the kinds of books published by imprints owned by the author or some group of axe-grinders. In the case of the specific book at issue, it doesn't meet those criteria. Arguing about the interpretation of individual subclauses in isolation is akin to the Supreme Court's Solomonic opinions on the significance of the Oxford comma. That's not how Wikipedia works. Importantly, this should be the standard for any section of the encyclopaedia that aspires to be a record of fact. Articles on wrestling are a dead loss and RS long since left the building there, but this is an area where we can and should aspire to academic levels of rigour, and all this remedy does is codify what that means: a good Wikipedian would interpret RS as mandating exactly this level of sourcing in this area, and the remedy's principal effect is to rapidly close down pointless argument on marginal sources.
This is a common problem at
WP:RSN. "Is X reliable" usually makes sense only in the context of "reliable for what?". The source under discussion does not to meet the remedy's requirement for statement as fact, but that does not prejudge whether it can be discussed as a significant opinion. You may view it as an edge case, but, from the article on the book, Cyra argues that the book "should be considered as non-fiction literature"; that it is "only partly fictionalized"
, and
Michael Fleming [...] writes that the book is a hagiographic narrative that reinforces the myth about Pilecki volunteering to be imprisoned in Auschwitz, whereas he posits the more correct and neutral description of what happened was that "Pilecki was pressured to allow himself to be arrested in the hope of being sent to a camp"
. That's a textbook
WP:UNDUE/
WP:ATT question, even without the specific remedy at issue. The book's thesis should clearly not be taken as fact in Wikipedia's voice per the remedy, but the remedy and normal Wikipedia practice do not preclude inclusion as a significant opinion or debate, subject to consensus on framing. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources
. This seems like a significant viewpoint, at least in respect of Pilecki.
The best solution in my view would be a standard Wikipedia fudge: a paragraph wordsmithed collaboratively between the various editors which references the book and its status as a popular history with some acceptance and some dissent, with an RfC to determine any disputed wording. In the alternative, we should apply the rule of sticks, if necessary using narrowly targeted remedies such as page bans or reply limits to help people towards a more thoughtful and measured form of engagement, rather than the characteristic rapid-fire and rapidly-escalating rhetoric that is all too common in this area.
Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia - by design, we're going to represent the mainstream scholarly consensus. The sourcing expectation remedy delivers exactly that. Some editors don't like it, but that is very much the point: a remedy that everyone loves, is probably not a necessary remedy. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I have not been involved in the present discussion, but in recent months I have observed RFCs over whether or not
Poland should be listed as one of the Axis powers, whether or not
Poland should be listed as a successor state of Nazi Germany, and a number of other such discussions. It is clear from the direction of these discussions that, on English Wiki, at present, Poland's role in WW2 is the subject of dispute typically involving people expressing views typical of those expressed in a range of different Central/Eastern European countries, and not Poland alone. Polish nationalism is not the only nationalism that needs to be guarded against here.
Academics are not the only people concerned here, either, nor should their interests be artificially elevated over those of others beyond what their expertise and institution requires. They may be experts (or in many cases may not actually be experts on this specific topic per se) but they are not the only experts, and the assumption that they are automatically free of biases or more reliable than non-academic sources is not one that historically has always proved true. Academia includes many institutions that are highly susceptible to the influence of various governments, not least because they are often government-funded and depend on goodwill with governments for access. Any one following Chinese issues in recent years will be familiar with the growing problem of self-censorship in return for access amongst academics. Academics are also human beings and given to the same rivalries and conflicts that ordinary people are (to take one example from this particular space, it is apparent from a reading of their negative reviews of each other's work that
Anita Prazmowska and
Anna Cienciala had a rivalry of sorts).
It would be highly anomalous that in this particular area of discussion, in respect of one particular Eastern European country, sources that we would typically consider reliable sources on the subject (e.g., newspaper articles written by non-academic experts in reliable outlets, books written by reputable non-academic journalists/historians and published by reputable publishing houses) should be artificially subordinated to academic ones (which may not be from particularly reputable institutions). This remedy, if it is interpreted as requiring this, was clearly excessive, disproportionate, and wrong even on its own merits, and should be set aside. However, I don't believe it requires this. Either the decision should be rescinded or it should be amended to clarify that sources with an academic nexus are not automatically more reliable than independent non-academic sources, that editors still need to exercise judgement.
Therefore:
I don't edit very much in this topic area, but was pleased to read that there was a well-drafted Arbcom decision pertaining to sourcing on the subject. It is a good decision, it still is amply warranted, and was written with great specificity so that it does not mandate further clarification. Arbcom is not required to interpret clearly worded decisions for editors who don't like their wording. This discussion was warranted by use of the book The Volunteer, which is a readable journalistic account that does not in any way, shape or form meet the criteria you set. Your decision is not broke and there is nothing to fix. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree the answers to 1 and 2 are yes for the reasons others explained above. As for #3, the most important part of the source expectation is, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, separating out academic from non-academic (e.g. mainstream books and popular press). I've been working on User:Levivich/Tiers of reliability, ranking different classes of sources, which might be the start of an essay or info page that editors can refer to when discussing levels of reliability among different types of sources. If anyone is interested in expanding it or otherwise working on it, they're most welcome to edit the page. Levivich harass/ hound 17:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Before we consider loosening this source expectation, we should answer two questions:
And I don't mean hypothetically, I mean in reality, in past experience. There's a lot of people talking hypotheticals, but I see no actual examples of, for example, a source that was removed from an article under this source expectation that should not have been removed. Even in the case of The Volunteer, I ask, what facts do we need to source from that book, that we cannot source from other, academic books? (Ships, for example, have nothing to do with it. AFAIK, no one has ever used this source expectation to argue that we can't use something like Naval Institute Press to source an article about a ship.)
I believe that once we identify the "facts outside academic sources", that is, facts that cannot be sourced to academic sources and can only be sourced to non-academic sources, it'll become apparent that these non-academic sources are totally unnecessary, if not counterproductive ... or they're so minor/uncontroversial (like ship specs) that no one is using this source expectation to argue against them anyway.
I believe in this topic area, the only time people go to non-academic sources is when those sources conflict with academic sources, and they want to use the non-academic sources to make the conflict seem like there is no academic consensus, when in fact there is academic consensus, it's just that some non-academic sources don't agree with that consensus. In those cases, we should be presenting only the academic consensus; significant minority views are only significant if they're significant in academia. We all know that academic publications will identify both mainstream and significant minority views explicitly. To say, "Ah! But there's a book that says something different! It's a significant minority view!" is to mislead our readers, IMO. It's a type of OR, IMO.
The reason this expectation was put in place in the first place is because people were using non-academic sources to argue against academic sources, and to make academic consensus appear to be just one of a number of competing viewpoints. This is misleading to our readers. This rather widespread practice had to be proven at the arbcom case before this expectation was put in place. Please, let's not undo that based on editor's hypotheticals and speculation, let's look at how this has been used, on the ground, in practice, before we decide whether it needs to be changed.
Whenever people say, "well, sometimes you need to include a fact but it's not in the sources," I think to myself, "so how do you know we need to include the fact, if it's not in the sources?" It seems like that's "backwards editing": first figure out what you want to say, then find sources to back it up. We should be doing the opposite: first find the sources, then summarize them. If a fact is not in the sources, it shouldn't be in our article, either. And while there are always exceptions for minor details here and there, I don't believe this source expectation has ever been used to exclude minor or uncontroversial factual details. There's a big difference between using a non-academic source to fill in some minor gap, and using it to argue against academic sources.
For example, the question "was 'the volunteer' really a volunteer or was he assigned?" is not a minor uncontroversial detail; we should only be writing what academic sources say on that point; we shouldn't use non-academic sources, such as the book, The Volunteer.
If the problem on the ground is limited to the use of non-academic sources for non-controversial details (I do not believe this is actually what the problem on the ground is), then it might make sense to clarify the expectation to say that it's OK to use high-quality but not-strictly-academic sources (like Naval Institute Press) for non-controversial details (like the technical specs of a battleship). But before we change anything, please identify the problem on the ground, in practice; don't change this based on hypotheticals.
And before anyone says anything, yeah, I know arbcom can't decide content disputes. But it can decide if any content disputes have arisen (is the current source expectation actually getting in the way of anything?), and what they were about (mainstream v. significant minority viewpoints, or minor/uncontroversial details like ship specs?). Levivich harass/ hound 18:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The relevant topic area here is Holocaust in Poland. That's a topic for which only academic-focused sources should be used. To the extent the source expectation is too broad, including all of WWII and thus things like ship specifications, the scope should be narrowed, rather than just ditching the whole thing. Levivich harass/ hound 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging all the participants! +1 to the #Alternative motion; seems like a best-of-both-worlds resolution. (Not to be confused with a The Best of Both Worlds resolution.) Levivich harass/ hound 20:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I align with the views expressed by DGG. But I will add Houston, we have a problem, and it is threatening NPOV. I totally agree that we must use high quality sources, and scholarly sources are unambiguously high on the list. But we must not forget that there are scholarly sources and books that reflect opposing views; therefore, we must exercise caution about eliminating other significant views that may not align with the most prevalent. Throughout history, scholarly views have been rejected because of strongly held views by some of our prominent leaders in science and medicine. See Bohr–Einstein debates. Keep in mind that our job is to provide all significant views, and allow our readers to explore the possibilities, conduct their own research, and form their own conclusions based on the material we've added per NPOV, and the cited sources we've provided. We should not limit them to a single POV if other views are also significant, regardless of our own personal opinions. Atsme 💬 📧 13:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Far too many words already, so I'll be brief: 1.Yes, 2.Yes, 3.Anything written on the subject by academic or other subject experts, in whatever format (academic book, popular book, journal article, magazine article, newspaper op-ed, interview, tweet, verified Facebook comment, etc.) should be considered to be an "academically-focused source". It's the expertise behind the words that's important, not the format in which the words appear. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't say as to whether a restriction in this vein should continue, but I do concur that it is not within ARBCOM's remit to be deciding such - they are making content decisions, just by the back door. Should they think the sanction should continue, then they should request the Community endorse it, in lieu of a formal rule change. Nuances within that, and expansion on clarification are well covered by the others, so I won't duplicate words Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@ CaptainEek: - this may be a bit of an ideological dispute that I suspect was argued all the way when BLP DS was made, but our disputes are either conduct or content oriented. Conduct goes to the conduct route, content the content route. I struggle to see how a change to required sourcing level is a conduct issue, so it must be a content route, and therefore outside ARBCOM's remit. At best, ARBCOM could authorise sanctions that would enforce a higher sourcing requirement but that the actual sourcing level would have to be determined by the Community. Play around with the sourcing levels and you could (if you wrote long-enough/tailored enough rules) functionally control content while still claiming it was under ARBCOM's remit - that isn't what's happening here, but it does to me seem to be in the same bucket. Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with El C that this was "one of the best and most important Arbitration decisions bar none"; with JzG that "this is an area where we can and should aspire to academic levels of rigour, and all this remedy does is codify what that means: a good Wikipedian would interpret RS as mandating exactly this level of sourcing in this area"; and with Coretheapple that the decision is "not broke and there is nothing to fix". SarahSV (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I object to the remedy because it’s a clear example of the creeping bureaucratization that we should be avoiding. While we all recognize the sensitivity of the topic area, the fact remains that there are already policies in place regarding sources, venues for discussing the reliability of sources, sanctions for deliberate misrepresentation of sources, etc. Moreover, the proposal gives bad-faith editors an additional tool with which to threaten their productive counterparts. ArbCom has generally stayed aloof from content disputes and should, in my view, continue to do so. — Biruitorul Talk 07:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I've said this before, but the problem is that the committee is trying to solve behaviour problems with a sourcing requirement, and a very vague one at that - we wouldn't be having this discussion if everyone was clear what "academically focused books" actually meant as can be seen by the discussion at RS/N that provoked this. While it is appropriate to expect high quality sources to be used for the nexus of the problem (i.e. the Holocaust in Poland, anti-Semitism in Poland and collaboration with the Germans), it is equally important (and perhaps even more so) that sources are used appropriately (i.e. is the best source for the fact being cited being used and has the source been used appropriately. It is also important to note that even peer-reviewed articles and other academically focussed works will have biases, or have been written to argue a point and even the best sources can make mistakes. Nigel Ish ( talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I entirely understand the sentiment and the need for protecting our content by focusing on academic sources. However, my concern is that specifically in Poland there are very few purely academically-focused presses. Some of those which, in theory, should be a paragon of scholarly effort, may be biased. Some others, even though they are commercial publishers, stay up to high scholarly standards. Books are tricky, but I'd say that books published by renown academics and peer-reviewed should be generally acceptable, irrespective of the publisher. We wouldn't want to exclude "The Penguin and the Leviathan: How Cooperation Triumphs over Self-Interest" by Yochai Benkler just because it was published by Penguin, right? Pundit| utter 08:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope you will bear with me as I have never commented on Wikipedia before. But the question before the arbitrators of what sources should be admissible, which has only recently come to my attention, is a very important one on which I would like to provide my thoughts-—which perhaps come from a perspective different than that of some of the other commentators.
The genius of Wikipedia comes from recognizing that crowd-sourcing is a highly effective (perhaps the most effective) way of reaching truth. But in order for this approach to work, the “crowd” must be wide. Limiting all sources on Wikipedia to “academically focused” or “peer reviewed” would be a grave mistake. It would be an even worse transgression, and a gross abandonment of Wikipedia’s purpose, to prejudicially impose such limit only in one topic area.
As a publisher of books in the subject area of Poland in World War II, I am acutely aware of the devastating long-term impact of postwar communist disinformation warfare, which even today colors international perception of Poland in the media and elsewhere—and indeed, including some of the discussion I see on this topic on Wikipedia.
Many of the problems with allowing only academically focused sources have been mentioned by others here. One of the most important to my mind is the fact that academic sources are by no means immune from personal bias or outside influence, including trends in research topics which are often dictated by available funding (which sometimes comes directly or indirectly from state actors with agendas). These dangers are more obvious in recent years, as academia has become more of a closed system tolerant of only certain viewpoints.
In addition, academic sources tend to be second-, third- or fourth-hand knowledge. They are highly dependent on the methodology by which the academic chose his/her sources and the scope of sources to which the academic had access—especially if, in a topic such as Poland in WWII, the academic is not multilingual. By the way, getting at the truth is one of the reasons why I like to publish firsthand contemporaneous accounts of events.
Peer review suffers from these same problems. Its unreliability was starkly illustrated by the recent retractions of Covid-related articles from the highly respected peer-reviewed journals Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine. The value of peer review in the academic social sciences is even more questionable, where one’s peers are likely to be subject to the same biases and influences, and where there is no replicable scientific data involved.
There are many, many useful and important non-academic sources, such as firsthand accounts, memoirs, documents, government reports or hearings, newspaper articles, ephemera, encyclopedias, museums, etc.—including trade books (in publishing, the term “mass market” refers to the small format paperbacks most commonly used for genre fiction).
Trade books can certainly constitute useful sources and should not be banned merely because of who published them or who buys them—for example, The Volunteer by Jack Fairweather, who is a highly respected researcher and journalist; or X, Y & Z: The Real Story of How Enigma Was Broken by Sir John Dermot Turing, nephew of famous Bletchley Park codebreaker Alan Turing, whose well-researched book focuses on the Polish mathematicians who first broke Enigma in 1932; or The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery by Captain Witold Pilecki, his most comprehensive report about his undercover mission at Auschwitz; or the 2018 edition of Fighting Auschwitz by Jozef Garlinski with an introduction by Prof. Antony Polonsky (Chief Historian of the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, and Emeritus Professor of Holocaust Studies at Brandeis University), who says “It remains the definitive study of the topic and has not been superseded by more recent scholarship.” Other examples are the Osprey series of books on military history, the Jane’s guides, and there are literally thousands of others that can serve as useful sources.
I truly value the efforts and intent of the arbitrators and editors to provide to the maximum extent possible "truth" on all the various topics covered in Wikipedia. But I believe that if there are questions or doubts, the remedy is not to ban the information, but to provide a reference to a competing source and let the reader decide for him/herself. -- Tataqp ( talk) 20:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The remedy is way too broad and unnecessary, and it prevents usage of perfectly reliable sources for uncontroversial topics which form majority of this case. -- evrik ( talk) 05:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I am a prolific Wikipedia reader but not a Wikipedia contributor. I enjoy learning about Polish history and manage a social media account that shares Polish history tidbits. There is very little online about niche subjects of Polish history in English, and most of it is on Wikipedia. Articles on individual ships, skirmishes, and Polish people who lived during WW2 are appreciated reading material that may simply not be on the radar of English language academics. Facts like a ship being sunk on a certain date, or a person being born in a certain town, should be fine using sources that aren’t up to the standards of hardcore academia. If more authoritative sources prove these wrong, all more power to the editors. The current strict standard applied to over a decade of history seems very harsh. I hope this arbitration leads to more interesting reading and higher quality curation, while avoiding collateral damage. AK at Aquila Polonica Publishing ( talk) 20:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit flabbergasted by the original remedy - it really does venture far too deeply into content control, and isn't even appropriate for the nature of the topic area. Irrespective of my thoughts about the original motion, though, Maxim's motion is entirely correct. When a remedy is no longer materially relevant, it should be removed. Risker ( talk) 23:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It is reasonable to pass a remedy that sanctions a specific editor for inappropriate use of reference sources, or for otherwise editing inappropriately in a topic area; that is already considered to be disruptive behaviour, and it is the behaviour you are sanctioning. It is reasonable to pass a remedy that permits independent administrators to assess the level of disruption caused by the editing practices of a particular editor; we call that discretionary sanctions. Both of them require evidence as to the disruption, specific to the sanction. But MEDRS is a creature of the community, as is the assessment of reliability of sources and the appropriateness of the sources used. The committee does not have authority over these areas of the project. At most, it can recommend or encourage the community to consider developing certain guidelines or policies related to sourcing of content. An editor using a non-academic reference as a source of information for non-controversial matters or for matters that are not normally included in the scope of academic references is not being disruptive. The result can be (and in a few cases, has been) gutting articles because there are no academic references that discuss non-controversial or even comparatively trivial statements in the article. Please keep the intentionally limited scope of Arbcom in mind; one might consider it the "Human Resources Department" of the project when it comes to discipline. Risker ( talk) 05:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't have much if any involvement in this (blame the AE thread), but WP:BESTSOURCES already seems to deal with the issue of controversial information - and that is also entirely common sense and honest academic practice (no serious academic would cite a newspaper article as a factual source for serious academic writing). Agree with CaptainEek that holding parts of the encyclopedia to stricter standards is not unprecedented (MEDRS is the obvious example), and should be an option in any areas which have shown to be prone to disruption (and history, as we all know, is prone to nationalist propaganda of all kinds, including revisionism and manipulation; so we should absolutely encourage more respectable sources); and further note that challenging high quality sources with poorer ones (and the popular press is okay for non-controversial facts, but journalists are not exactly subject matter experts with all the credentials and experience to provide an accurate picture of more difficult historiographical issues) is indeed a disruptive, conduct issue and not just a mere content issue. If the restrictions are doing good and preventing disruption and POV pushing (in what appears to be an extremely tense area), they should stay. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I've only tangentially followed this dispute, but the crux of the matter seems to be that "academic" does not work as a useful way to distinguish between good and bad sources (at least in this topic area). MEDRS works (when correctly applied) because it reliably separates good sources from bad ones (and is treated as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule). This, or any similar restriction, that excludes many good sources and/or allows many bad ones is going to cause more problems than it solves, especially if it says "X is good Y is bad" rather than "good sources generally do X, sources that do Y are bad more often than not". Thryduulf ( talk) 14:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Assuming that the alternative motion passes: since the sanction describes itself as an expansion of a page-level DS at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, it may be worthwhile to clarify the status of that specific page - whether the original page-level sanction will remain in effect, whether it is being replaced by the "reliable-source consensus required" sanction, whether it is being vacated with the others, or something else. I think it's implied that the original sanction will remain, but I don't know if others will think the same way.
Actually, it might also make sense to consider whether the pages at the nexus of the original dispute should be presumed to retain it as a page-level restriction, which could then be appealed at WP:AE as necessary. The idea would be to prevent the issues that led to the sanction from reoccurring, unless the Committee's opinion is that a renewal of the disruption on those pages is unlikely. Sunrise ( talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
I wonder if a more usable remedy would be along the lines of "[requiring] high-quality sources for exceptional claims for articles related to anti-Semitism and Jewish history in Poland, specifically in relation to World War II and The Holocaust, as well as on biographies of scholars studying these topics" that is enforceable via AE. This would: (1) narrow the scope as to not sweep up everything to do with Polish history in WWII; (b) not require specific types of sources within the topic area for material that is unlikely to be controversial; and (c) a reinforcement of the WP:V policy within the given topic area. Maxim(talk) 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is repealed.
of a superior research quality in the tradition of the best academics. That means lay authors are acceptable, as long as their work is well researched in an academic fashion. From there, it is up to the community to decide what sources are acceptable. This remedy ensures that the community errs on the side of more reliable over less reliable. Just as WP:MEDRS requires more stringent sourcing, so too does this dark and difficult topic which multiple governments and many political actors have a vested interest in manipulating. I can see amending the precise wording, or some sort of explanatory supplement to the remedy. But to repeal this remedy would be a definite failure on our part. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 05:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I take seriously the reasons that have been submitted for why this restriction needs to go, including it being hard to interpret, it being outside our scope of authority, and that it is hindering the creation of high quality in this topic area, but I don't know that this motion is the correct response. I am nervous about supporting this and not doing anything else given that, El C, the only uninvolved admin who we have that is currently working this area who has weighed in here (per the DS log) has stated that the restriction remains needed. I'm not sure I like the other options I can come up with better - doing a full case (we're not at at Palestinian/Israel levels of need from what I've seen) or coming up with some other motion (what would it be? I have no idea) - but I am a little nervous about just rescinding it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project(emphasis added). The authority to prohibit the addition of content is expressly denied to administrators when consensus for the edit exists, and for good reason: to declare otherwise would place the administrator's decision above community consensus on a matter affecting content. Because the original sourcing restriction did not allow editors to add non-academic sources, even with consensus, it was ultra vires. Now, ArbCom is not limited by the DS procedures when it adopts page restrictions directly. But after reading this discussion, it is my view that the sourcing restriction falls outside prudent limits that ArbCom should place on its own powers. This remedy categorically excludes many sources that the community deems generally reliable ( WP:IRS, WP:RS/P). Therefore, the remedy in its current form cannot stay. However, as many community members point out, the topic area is still the subject of significant ongoing disruption, so I would like to see this remedy replaced by something instead of simply vacated. I would be curious to hear how editors would view a "(strong) consensus required for addition of non-academic references" requirement. Further ideas are also welcome. I'll hold off on this motion, but if there are no good alternatives I think I will eventually have to vote for it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
" Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is repealed. However, administrators remain empowered to issue sanctions, including topic bans, to editors who disruptively edit by using biased, POV pushing and/or low quality sources"? The last part is taken from the FoF for the case. I'm kind of spitballing here but hopefully this would signal our support for administrators in this topic area to stop disruption while removing the blanket restriction across the topic area. I'm also not opposed to Kevin's consensus required for non-academic references piece though that doesn't address the "ArbCom is not empowered to pass this kind of remedy" concern. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on
articles all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, 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.
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is repealed, effective 30 days after the date of this motion. However, if a request for comment on sourcing requirements for articles related to Polish history during World War II (1933-45) is opened in that 30-day period, Remedy 5 will continue in effect until the request for comment is closed. If the request for comment reaches a consensus to restrict the use of certain sources, clear breaches of the restriction may be treated by administrators as disruptive editing and subject to discretionary sanctions enforcement.
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: When a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question."
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question.
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or through a discussion at the
Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction.
The Arbitration Committee invites the community to hold a request for comment on sourcing requirements for articles related to Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. If the request for comment reaches a consensus to restrict the use of certain sources, clear breaches of the restriction may be treated by administrators as disruptive editing and subject to discretionary sanctions enforcement. When the request for comment is closed, or if no request for comment is opened within 30 days of this motion, Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") will cease to have effect.
Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is repealed, effective 30 days after the date of this motion. However, if a request for comment on sourcing requirements for articles related to Polish history during World War II (1933-45) is opened in that period, Remedy 5 will continue in effect until the request for comment is closed. If the request for comment reaches a consensus to restrict the use of certain sources, clear breaches of the restriction may be treated by administrators as disruptive editing and subject to discretionary sanctions enforcement.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
- Extended confirmed restriction
The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:
- A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
- 1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
- 2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
- B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
- C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
- D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.
Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:
- Extended confirmed restriction
7) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.
Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:
Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.
Enacted - SQL Query Me! 10:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.@ CaptainEek and Casliber: Hope this is fine! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.Remedy 5 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 says:
Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.This motion is just housekeeping. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Wugapodes at 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The 30/500 remedy of the antisemitism in Poland case is unclear on whether it applies to namespaces beyond (Article). The decision states that non-EC editors are prohibited from editing articles
and further states that non-EC editors may use the Talk: namespace
to discuss improvements. However, this differs from the other 30/500 scheme imposed by ARBPIA. In that topic area, editors are prohibited from editing content
and editing talk pages is listed as an explicit exception to the general prohibition in all namespaces. This inconsistency between the two has led to confusion among administrators and editors. The Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella reverted a non-EC editor who was editing antisemitism in Poland content in project space. The editors stated that those reverts were not edit warring as they enforced the 30/500 restriction which they believe applied to all namespaces. Ymblanter blocked them both on the basis of the remedy text, believing that the 30/500 remedy applied only to mainspace. Clarification on this point would help avoid future miscommunications and conflict. 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On pages with related contentto something like
On secondary pages with related contentor change your defined term from "secondary" to "pages with related content". — Wug· a·po·des 22:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I am under understanding that if the arbitration decision says "article" and not "page" it means "article" and not "page". Which makes perfect sense to me because for example talk pages should not be included in any case, and concerning Wikipedia namespace, the pages there do not obey the same policies as the articles, for example WP:V or WP:N do not apply to the same extent. It is of course up to ArbCom to modify the wording if they wish to do so.
To correct the original statement, GCB reverted a long-standing editor; VM first edit was a revert of a long-standing editor (although the edit they were reverting stood on the page for about two years); the other three reverts were indeed of a non-extended-confirmed editor.
What we also need is to clarify, similarly to PIA situation, is whether new accounts may edit articles which are not primarily related to antisemitism in Poland but contain some pieces or even sentences related to antisemitism in Poland. My proposal would be to state that new accounts are not allowed to make any edits to any articles if the edit is related to antisemitism in Poland, but I believe it is not currently stated clearly in the remedy.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 05:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Note that I discussed the above interpretation of the remedy with VM after I blocked them (it was then called wikilawyering), and also in the ANI thred where it was completely ignored.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Ncmvocalist: I did warn VM before blocking, and we had a discussion, it is just the discussion did not happen to be productive.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
In addition to the wording at ARBPIA, the WP:GS page which references the general 30/500 rule also says "content". Full text for completeness [222]:
Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce these remedies on article creations.
I bolded the parts where there's some difference. This means that the restriction on non-confirmed users editing "AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions" are EVEN MORE stringent than regular articles and article talk pages. One recurring problem since this amendment was put in place is of masses of sock puppet showing up to RfCs and brigading them. And making exceptions for RfCs does create a loophole - a friend of a banned user creates an RfC, then the banned user swarms the RfC with socks and it's really a lot of effort to file SPIs on all of them.
Of course, aligning the Poland-specific restriction with WP:GS and ARBPIA would also eliminate the sort of confusion that led to the recent drama. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ L235: and @ SoWhy: - the problem is that there has indeed been disruption by sock puppets outside of article space, either on WP boards (RSN, BLP) or via RfCs. I can compile a more exhaustive list from the past few months (or longer) but that will take time. But even very recently we've had an Icewhiz sock puppet VikingDrummer intervene in SPI to defend other sock puppets start RfC which was then flooded with other brand new accounts, use article talk pages to make personal attacks, vote in RfC. Another sockpuppet/blocked account User:Potugin, tried to use ANI to get their way and to agitate for sanctions, vote in an RfC, and again jumped into an ANI discussion to agitate for sanctions. This is just tip of the iceberg, just from the most recent past. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If you keep this loophole (restricting the prohibition only to articles) then I can 100% guarantee you that this issue will come up again and again. You leave a loophole, unscrupulous banned editors will exploit it. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, what is "APL"? (and vandalism has always been a daily occurrence) Volunteer Marek 16:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, what GCB said. The number of sock puppets in this area is so high that it's simply unreasonable to ask editors to constantly be filling out SPI reports (last one I filed took me 3 hours, which at my usual billing rates would be... way too much. You include the compensation for stress and we talking serious financial losses). The original restriction did work though! The disruption of articles themselves has gone way down. The area has calmed down. But unfortunately there is a kind of a "squeeze the balloon in one place, it gets bigger in another" effect here, as some of the sock puppetry has moved from articles to policy pages, noticeboards and talk pages (via RfCs in particular), as well as some AfDs (though I don't pay that much attention to that last category). Since the restriction was successful at solving (albeit partially) the initial problem, extending it - in line with how the restriction is usually interpreted and how it's applied in other topic areas - makes a lot of sense. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also what Zero0000 said. We know this works from other topic areas. So do it. (seriously we do so many things which don't work or we don't know if they work and here we have one that does work ... yet we're hesitant? Are we afraid of actually solving our problems?) Volunteer Marek 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: two of the three ARCAs in this TA had to do with persistent sock puppetry, right? That is where the disruption in this topic area is originating and an ArbCom case won’t do anything at all to resolve that since you can’t have a case with sock puppets as parties. What would help matters is streamlining this restriction to match up with similar ones in other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I do feel it necessary to note that Francois Robere’s comments regarding “review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action” constitute a WP:IBAN violation since one of the editors Ymblanter blocked is User:GizzyCatBella whom FR has an interaction ban with. For a very good reason. In fact, FR just came off a 48 hour block for violating that IBAN [223]. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that FR is agitating here for someone to overrule the consensus at ANI which was highly critical of Ymblanter’s block of GCB and myself. This is also the proper context in which to understand FR’s “suggestions” for a new (unnecessary) arb case. Volunteer Marek 21:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I really want to encourage everyone to focus on the actual request for clarification - does the restriction cover non-article space, and if no, should it - rather than going off on tangents. In particular, there is little sense in arguing HERE about whether Ymblanter's blocks were legit or not. They weren't, but he's unblocked, however reluctantly, so as long as he doesn't keep trying to persue the matter, I'm happy to let this one go. Volunteer Marek 07:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
due to enormous sock puppet activity in these sectors. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, and noticeboard discussions
This is a great example since it just happens as we speak. [224]. Brand new account, reactivated after 2 years of inactivity, shows up in support of the banned user's entry. Please note that this is a daily occurrence in this topic area. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC) And of course, there is a correlation in other articles between the short-lived account and the banned user [225] but who has the energy to file an SPI report every day? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Here you are again, that's the same talk page one day later [226]. This is occurring continuously, every day, on multiple articles. I can present a comprehensive list of talk pages, RfC, etc. affected by newly created accounts/proxy generated IP’s. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(Collapsed outdated below)
Extended content
|
---|
- GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC) |
Updating (as of August 27th) - I can see that this is on hold, but I'm just letting you know that distress from the brand new accounts in the topic area continues [227], [228]. Nothing changed. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC) See this also - [229] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The current rules for ARBPIA are working pretty well, so replicating them here would be a safe and effective option. Zero talk 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I'm reminded by looking at the last case that I have better things to do with my life than participate in this. Sorry, I withdraw my statements. Levivich 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Levi that there's no need to "dice it up." If unexperienced editors and socks are a major problem on these articles, they aren't likely to be a net positive in the other namespaces. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 04:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On one hand I am hesitant to deny 'free speech' to anyone, on the other I can confirm that Icewhiz's associated LTAs have been active in some non-article spaces. This started already in 2019 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death (an AFD of a rant written by Icewhiz; just look at it - almost all 'votes' are crossed out, socks everywhere). This pattern continues in AfDs, RfCs and like in this TA - above normal numbers of SPAs, IPs, and like are a norm. However, per my 'free speech' concerns, I'd suggest not removing them, but instead, votes by such accounts should be clearly labeled in some fashion. Maybe revise the cited remedy to note that votes and comments by such editors in this topic area should be considered as having less weight than those of normal editors, and encourage usage of templates such as {{ Single-purpose account}}. {{ csp}}, {{ csm}}, {{ Afdnewuser}} and like. Could also consider creating a new template to be used in this topic area instead of the new linked, linking to the revised remedy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Since the WP:GS page has been brought up a few times now at ANI and in SoWhy's comment: that text was only meant to be descriptive of what ArbCom's general remedies are. It was taken from the ARBPIA remedy, I believe. You can parse it for this context by taking "articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism" to be the "given area of conflict". Otherwise, that text has no enforcement basis at all. There are three 500/30s authorised here:
There exists no authorisation that uses the informational text at WP:GS. (I proposed removing it last year to avoid confusion but that didn't gain consensus.)
As for the scope of the remedy, I feel like it's little things like this that makes the general sanctions regimes appear complicated. This is the only one of three authorisations to limit to "mainspace". I think extending the scope for simplicity's sake is worth it alone, given that the covered content in other namespaces is almost certainly very low (both relatively and absolutely). The collateral damage will also be insignificant compared to the collateral damage already caused by having this restriction in mainspace.
I do believe VM thought in good faith it applied to the given page, given that all other remedies are across all namespaces, and a plausible explanation is that ArbCom made the common error of using "articles" and "pages" as synonyms. It's very much possible the distinction wasn't even noticed on a first read - I certainly didn't notice it on my first read, but then again I just skimmed over it as I presumed it was identical to the boilerplate text elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 09:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
|
If ArbCom wishes to maintain its relevancy and keep the Wikipedia community active and vibrant, it needs to stop dealing in minutae and start putting its foot down. APL is bleeding editors and admins, people complain about their blood pressure and mental health (!), vandalism is an almost daily occurrence, and you're arguing about namespaces? What are you, the IETF? There are so many things that you could do to fix this, and instead you're putting your finger in the dike. François Robere ( talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If by PIA4 - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland is meant, one reason I did not participate much was I was moving. Quite literally, we were physically moving during the time period. But a much bigger reason I didn't do much with it was the sheer ... tiredness that the entire topic area (of Polish/Jewish history both before and during the Holocaust and the reprecussions of that history in the modern era) elicits in me. It's a cesspit of battleground behavior and the previous attempts (including that case and all the "clarifications" since from arbcom) have failed miserably. About a year ago, it got so bad, I just totally removed ALL the articles in the topic area from my watchlist, except for the main Holocaust article. As I have many of the English sources that could be used in this area, the fact that I've been driven off from it by the behavior of most of the editors in the area should be quite telling. The reason why the arbcom case didn't work was that there was no way within the word limits to possibly present enough evidence to persuade any arbs, and it's not worth the bother quite honestly. Right now, what you have is basically a bunch of editors who blame all problems on Icewhiz while spending what seems like all their time battling the "hordes of sockpuppets" of Icewhiz as well as trying to eliminate all sign of letting any of his edits (or any edits that they think MIGHT be his or might be inspired by him or ... you get the picture) remain in the encyclopedia. Until folks wake up to the tag teaming and battleground behavior and grasp the nettle to eliminate the folks doing that behavior, it's never going to get better. The inability to recognize that there are a large number of sources that are so hopelessly biased that they shouldn't be used ... is just the icing on the cake. Ealdgyth ( talk) 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
François Robere, POV is fine, APL is fine, even TP is fine, I suppose. But TA? Comeon! It took me minutes of hard drinking to figure out it meant topic area. Now, granted I'm much slower than your average reviewer of the ARCA (praise be), but for the love of Cow Man, please just write "topic area" plainly. Jeez, I'm trying to be stealth over here. El_C 01:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
This is just about the 500/30 rule
I understand wanting a standard, but if arbcom is going to use numbers to describe trustworthiness, then the numbers in question shouldn't be higher than the trust needed to vote each of you into arbcom:
I mean really, 500 mainspace edits are what's required to be an arbitrator. Are we really wanting to set the bar that high?
As for 30, arbcom voters need roughly 60 days. I wouldn't mind if this were moved up to that. - jc37 19:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I reiterate RGloucester's original comment here too as it is relevant to the incident and clarification. The remedy was clear on its own, but I think the "...exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..." line cited by Volunteer Marek was not unreasonable to cite as an exception either. Volunteer Marek was clear about this interpretation at the outset and that misunderstanding should have been addressed first by the admin. An unequivocal warning was not issued (as I said at the ANI) or more ideally, a discussion that was more conducive to calming a frustrated editor down and moving forward. That is why the community would have reversed the block in any case. I have previously seen AE admin threaten to stop their work if an action isn't supported, but thankfully Ymblanter will not be one of them - in that they behave maturely, even in the face of serious health issues during admin actions, by swiftly taking steps to address the issues caused by the blocks. There is a separate matter raised by Piotrus which Ymblanter hasn't yet addressed at the ANI, but they propose to deal with that after this ARCA is completed.
That just leaves one separate issue here - the wisdom of this 'tailored' rule that came into effect last year. I actually share the reservations held for implementing the rule at all. In spite of this, if one concludes that a rule is required, @ Worm That Turned and SoWhy: I don't understand how last year's rule is somehow helpful in alleviating the actual reservations. If the restrictions exist for the article space, why should the participation be allowed on project pages that are not in the talk space? AFAIK, new legitimate accounts will start out in the main space. Additionally, if we take care to remember why DS (a type of GS) was streamlined by AC in the first place, I think we can appreciate why a streamlined 500/30 rule (another type of GS) is more effective in resolving the underlying issues sought to be addressed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 20:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The amentment says: methods noted in paragraph b)
- What is "paragraph b)"?
Lembit Staan (
talk) 01:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Go with Arbpia and 500/30, it works, more or less (if I was going to change 500/30 it would be upwards). Selfstudier ( talk) 11:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The motion needs proof-reading - it includes "Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b)
" but there is no paragraph marked "b)" (indeed, paragraphs are not individually identified in any way).
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the EC omnibus motion, I suggest the following copy edits:
− | + | New editors are restricted from editing directly in topic areas specified by the Committee. All IP editors and users who are not [[WP:XC|extended confirmed]] are prohibited from editing within the designated area. For primary articles related to the topic area, this prohibition is preferably enforced using extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. For secondary pages with related content, or for primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the extended confirmed restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.{{pb}}The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:{{ordered list
|1=
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods mentioned in the prior paragraph. This exception does not apply to any other namespace.
|2=
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.{{pb}}For the purposes of this restriction, "primary" shall mean pages on which a majority of the content is within the conflict area. "Secondary" articles are those with less than a majority of their content related to the conflict area. Pages which mention the conflict area in mere passing, and whose content is not controversial, should ''not'' be considered to be within the scope of these restrictions.}}
|
I did not include the prohibition on requests for comments, requested moves, or other "internal project discussions" occurring on an article talk page, as I'm not clear on the practicality of allowing "constructive comments" in a non-RfC discussion but disallowing them for an RfC, in a discussion on an article title versus a requested move, and so forth. isaacl ( talk) 21:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I also urge the arbitrators not to use a term such as "ECP DS". Authorization for individual administrators to devise sanctions of their own invention is distinct from a defined page editing restriction. isaacl ( talk) 21:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding WormThatTurned's suggestion to drop the terms "primary" and "secondary": I agree that when feasible, it's better to avoid having definitions to argue over. I do think, though, that it should be made clear that the editing restriction can apply to specific sections of an article and not only to entire articles. isaacl ( talk) 14:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the "why 500/30" question above, the reality is that these topic areas see a lot more focused, determined WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT behavior than ArbCom elections. Yes, ArbCom elections are in theory more momentous, but topic areas that run along the fault line of real-world disputes are often what draws the sort of editors who engage in WP:SOCK / WP:MEAT behavior and which causes them to keep doing it. That means that topic areas like Antisemitism in Poland or ARBPIA are more likely to see disruptive attempts to evade any restriction, necessitating the longer period to make it harder to work around. And on a philosophical level, editors have less need to edit in a disputed topic area than they do to have a voice in selecting ArbCom - if a new editor desperately wants to edit ARBPIA articles, we can just ask them to edit elsewhere for a bit first; whereas when we cut an editor out of the process of electing ArbCom, we've disenfranchised them and that's that. Forbidding intermittent new editors who never reach 500/30 from voting for ArbCom would be more of a loss than banning them from ARBPIA. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
{{
subst:Gs/alert}}
use the abbreviation "Gs" despite explicitly only applying for community-sanctions). I don't think any further discussion of "mistakes" in usage is helpful though. I see your point that this has led to some confusion in general, however, I don't see any of that applying in this specific case where the language of the DS in question was clear and the question whether DS are a part of GS or something separate is not of any relevance afaics. Regards
So
Why 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)I have furthermore simply removed content from "editing content", as I believe that to be redundant. We already have a list of enumerated exceptions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Here's an alternative:
Old version
|
---|
|
I'm still not a huge fan of this approach. We would be better off codifying how all of our topic-wide restrictions should be construed. This draft, however, doesn't introduce new terminology and I think is more clear than the current text. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Now proposed below.
|
---|
In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:
Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:
|
Above is a second draft of the motion. This may be an improvement on the status quo, but our procedures need to codify even more: (keep in mind I'm writing these kind of off the cuff)
I don't want these other things to hold up improvements, but we should be conscious that we're not making other things worse when we try housekeeping motions like this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Amendment_(May_2021) section: in sentence " when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher," please change journals to journal. Ping User:L235 who enacted it. TIA, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over at
Warsaw concentration camp an objection has been raised to using
Haaretz as a source using [
[231]] as a justification, now as far as I know that material has been there for years. So is this a correct interpretation, they have objected so it must be removed [
[232]]?
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
incited by the globally banned user(Icewhiz). Because it's not Icewhiz who's written the Haaretz article in question, they simply tipped off Haaretz in an attempt to gather media attention to the article, and because no specific fact sourced to the article was challenged, it isn't a proper challenge. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 16:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Here are the reasons --> a source that has been written under the influence of a banned user (after he was banned) and quite possibly partially drafted by them provided by them in writing by e-mail is not a RS. Period. -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 17:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As I came here for fresh eyes, maybe we need to let others offer their opinions? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)