Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-22/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

YOUR ARTICLE'S DESCRIPTIVE TITLE HERE

By Bri

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland final decision

The final decision for the case "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" was posted May 20, the day before publication of this issue of The Signpost.

The Arbitration Committee acknowledged that their acceptance of the case was "in response" to the February 9, 2023 publication of "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust", authored by Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein, but reaffirmed that their review was solely concerning editor conduct, not to make a determination about the facts of history about which Wikipedia editors disagree, nor facts represented in the paper. (This same "policy to steer clear of content" was critiqued in a university press release; for more, see this issue's In the media: "Wikipedia's World War II controversy attracts comments from opposing scholars".)

The principles determined to be relevant to the case were an unsurprising recital of Wikipedia conduct standards such as battleground behavior, acceptable sourcing and source manipulation, and the role of the Universal Code of Conduct.

Findings of fact were likewise unsurprising, and noted defense of some parties by other parties. Findings included both exemplary community-mindedness – helping to find consensus on difficult issues, for example – and behavior that is not commensurate with community standards.

The decision includes "standard" remedies:

• Topic bans for various parties to the case
  • François Robere, My very best wishes, and Volunteer Marek were topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed
• Interaction bans for various parties to the case
  • François Robere and Volunteer Marek
  • Levivich and Volunteer Marek
  • My very best wishes (one-way) with Piotrus
  • My very best wishes (one-way) with Volunteer Marek

No editor was banned from Wikipedia in the final decision, although a proposal to do so was made (see below).

In addition, there is now a new "reliable sourcing restriction" in the topic area, which replaces a similar restriction instituted as part of the 2019 Antisemitism in Poland case. The new restriction reads as follows:

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

Of note is a lengthy section on the Proposed Decision page written by arbitrator Wugapodes, "Wugapodes' rationale" for an editor ban, which seems to be in alignment with their 2021 Signpost opinion piece "The (Universal) Code of Conduct"; and principle 16 of the Arbitration Committee's final decision, also concerning the same document:

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. The English Wikipedia has developed policies and guidelines (PAG) that add to this minimum that take account of local and cultural context, maintaining the UCoC criteria as a minimum standard and, in many PAGs, going beyond those minimums. Therefore, the Arbitration Committee, as an identified high-level decision making body under the UCoC enforcement guidelines, may choose to evaluate compliance with English Wikipedia PAG, while still respecting the UCoC.

This is the first major ArbCom decision following the Foundation's ratification of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines this March (see previous Signpost coverage). In this decision, ArbCom appears to be setting up a precedent for their own role in adopting its authorities. Whether the UCoC is or should be a source of authority was debated by the Committee, but with seemingly little dissent from an affirmative decision.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

In this issue

22 May 2023

News and notes

In the media

Arbitration report

Recent research

Featured content

Traffic report

WikiProject report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try .

• The ""reliable sourcing restriction"" as written is problematic; it doesn't allow for the reversion of vandalism, nor for good-faith editors who restore disputed sources without being aware that they have been previously removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Seems like you want to introduce a mens rea "element of the crime", but I don’t think that is necessary. On Wikipedia, blocks are preventative not punishing. Worst case, a well meaning but disruptive editor gets a short block, and finds out about the special sourcing status of this article. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, I just remember when we used to treat new and good faith editors with a modicum of courtesy and consideration, and would like to return to that ethos. I'm also unclear how changing "no editor may reinstate the source..." to, say, "no editor, once made aware of this restriction (and with the exception of reverting unambiguous vandalism), may reinstate the source..." would lessen its effectiveness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't the decision's wording Administrators may enforce this restriction (emphasis mine) already give admins the discretion that they would have with the additional text you just proposed? In other words, "may enforce...with blocks" doesn't mean "must block". In other, other words, if we have admins zooming around blocking new and good faith editors, maybe it's an administrator problem, not an arbcom problem. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it does say "may". It says an admin may block a user who restores a disputed link, even if they do so while reverting vandalism, and that an admin may block a novice, good-faith user who restores such a link even while being completely unaware of the restriction. Why would we want to say these things? Under what policy "may" an admin make such blocks? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• According to media, the Arbcom decision was heart-wrenching for Grabowski and Klein. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost is written by editors like you — join in!

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions