WP:ARCA

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms	none	(orig. case)	16 March 2020
Amendment request: Race and intelligence	none	(orig. case)	26 April 2020
Amendment request: Antisemitism in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	15 May 2020
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	20 May 2020

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms

Initiated by David Tornheim at 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

David Tornheim's topic ban from topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is reduced to be a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. David Tornheim is further warned that any disruption in the GMO topic area after this appeal will likely result in additional sanctions, including but not limited to the restoration of the original topic ban as a new sanction. 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

David Tornheim's topic ban from topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is reduced to be a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. David Tornheim is further warned that any disruption in the GMO topic area after this appeal will likely result in additional sanctions, including but not limited to the restoration of the original topic ban as a new sanction. 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove restriction

Statement by David Tornheim

I am appealing my topic ban from GMOs imposed by Seraphimblade in July 2016—almost four years ago. I have not made any edits in the area since then.

In April 2019, I appealed this topic ban, and it was reduced by TonyBallioni to a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed.

I have not edited articles related to glyphosate or GMOs since then. I would like to have this restriction removed.

After four years, this restriction appears to be more punitive than WP:PREVENTATIVE. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv and GorillaWarfare::

Can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area?

I mentioned this in my previous appeal last year, where I said, "If my topic ban is lifted, I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources." I also commented on the fact that the science has fallen out of date, where a nearly 20-year-old report has been superseded.

I have a Bachelor of Science from University of Cincinnati and Master of Science from University of Southern California, and can bring a science background and knowledge of proper review of scientific literature to articles. I edit under my own name.

(a) understands the reason for their ban * * * (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward

I explained that in my response to Seraphimblade in my previous appeal. In particular, I said that I will focus on content, not editor.

At the time of my 2016 topic ban, I had only made about 3,000 edits; now I have made over 12,000 edits. I am far more familiar with the policies and guidelines around casting aspersions and civility, and I now understand the importance of collaborative editing and how to resolve conflicts when there is disagreement.

I am now far more familiar with sourcing requirements than in 2016.

(b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas

I believe my edit-history speaks for itself. I provided a number of examples of areas I was involved in, in my appeal of 2019 in the initial post. Since then, I have continued to work on vandalism reversion and created articles on the John Robinson Circus and Tillie (elephant).

I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope.

(1) I wanted to demonstrate continued restraint. Often, editors who have been blocked or topic-banned immediately return to their past behaviors as soon as the ban is lifted.

(2) Shortly after the reduction in my topic-ban, I sought clarification on the scope of the topic ban. I was puzzled by the responses and simply stayed away.

(3) That almost any edit in GMO might be construed as related to glyphosate was a big deterrent.

I value my reputation on Wikipedia. Editing under my real name, my reputation at Wikipedia reflects on me personally and directly. In four years of the topic ban, I have learned from my mistakes.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

No real thoughts on this. I’m happy with whatever the arbs decide. My standard comment is that a sanction working should not be taken as evidence that it isn’t needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I was rather apprehensive about narrowing the original sanction's scope, but it appears that doing so hasn't had any negative consequences. I suppose this could be tried, with a clear understanding that if the problems occur again, the topic ban will be put right back in place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

As someone who spent a lot of time trying to curate the GMO topic and deal with the disruption David Tornheim and other editors caused, I'm going to ask arbs to carefully read the comments (especially admins) from both David's original topic ban AE, and the appeal, especially in the context of how frustrated the community was with what David was constantly stirring up in this topic. A lot of David's actions outlined there more or less forced us to need a DS-enforced RfC on the scientific consensus for genetically modified food safety. There (and before) David frequently engaged in denialism on the consensus, and in the real-world, that is generally treated similarly to climate change denial, anti-vaccine sentiment, etc.[1][2] Such WP:PSCI policy violations generally require a significant demonstrated change in subject matter competence for sanctions to be not needed.

Even at that AE appeal less than a year ago, the topic ban reduction was pretty tepid among admins, and part of the expectation was that David could use it demonstrate they could edit appropriately in the broader GMO area. Instead, they haven't edited the area at all. That's somewhat akin (though not exactly the same) to the problem of an editor being topic banned, "retiring" for the length of it, then appealing it saying that haven't caused problems since. In the real world, fringe proponents have shifted the goal posts away from GMO safety to glyphosate to make that the new point flash pan controversy filled with fringe theories us agricultural/science editors have spent a lot of effort separating from actual science. That David wants to directly jump into this new controversy without any other GMO edits is a serious red flag. Contrary to their last appeal's comment I think this illustrates that I was a newbie who did not fully understand the rules and Wikipedia norms..., the kind of stuff they engaged in went well beyond being a newbie and shows disregard for what they actually were banned for. My specific comments at the appeal have more background on that.

Prior to the ban, David's main area of disruption was primarily in GMOs with serious WP:FRINGE and WP:ADVOCACY issues, which is documented pretty well at their original AE ban and the previous sanctions listed there. Part of the behavior issues that the topic ban was meant to handle was to keep David away from science curators in the topic such as myself in lieu of a one-way interaction ban. That has to do with a specific GMO principle we passed at arbcom on aspersions (e.g., the Monsanto shill gambit). There's a lot of other history behind that principle, but a major reason for David's ban was hounding editors and disrupting content discussion with that gambit and encouraging others as you can read about in their original AE ban that led to two others getting sanctioned at well. See David's Monsanto must be pleased thread for another example of what we had to deal with until admins finally stepped in.

If anything else, it still looks like the WP:PREVENTATIVE ban is still working, and David hasn't given us any reason to think otherwise given how serious their behavior issues were before the topic ban (most comments at the last appeal were very generic that struck me as a mix between empty and incomplete apologies). As I asked at the last appeal, why would David be so interested in coming back into a topic they were so dead set against the science on? Their last appeal really didn't address the problems they caused at all, and this appeal has even less. We really need a good reason given past behavior to let David into controversial areas on this subject beyond it's been awhile and the topic seems calmer now. If anything, that's because the sanction was working correctly. I might have different opinions on more periphery GMO editors that were banned/sanctioned (13+ at last count), but David was one of the core editors in this subject that led to the original GMO case and problems afterwards.

Obviously I've had to deal with a lot from David in the past I've tried to distill down into something manageable, but if you boil this all down into one line, if David still can't even directly address the serious behavior that led to their ban, then the appeal should be denied. They haven't said or done anything different since the last appeal, glyphosate is still controversial, and this appeal seems to be significantly lacking for establishing what would be considered low-risk upon return. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv and GorillaWarfare: Seeing David's most recent response, I'm concerned they especially skirt around one of the core issues. They say they have a science background, yet outright denied the scientific consensus and significantly disrupted the topic as part of it. The "updating" the science thing goes back to WP:TE type issues that came up in the GMO RfC I mentioned above. An issue there wasn't not using scientific sources, but cherrypicking low quality fringe articles and taking up community time pushing that. What David has said on having a science background doesn't differentiate them from before their topic ban, but I realize it's not easy for arbs either since you need to somehow assess subject matter competence changes to address the fringe advocacy history, especially with no edit history in the unbanned areas. I'm not sure how you could reasonably assess if the POV problems wouldn't come back.

On the old rejected change they do mention, the science hasn't really changed in that area significantly (I'll stay out of those weeds), so David's comment is already a red flag for me. It may seem minor at first glance, but those kind of edits using attribution or middling language to lessen the apparent weight of a source were a common problem back before the ban (normally something from the from a secondary source like the EPA wouldn't even need attribution). In reality though, that entire section was already since updated over the years looking for more current sources. Editors still decided to use the source in question (ref 80) along with a more current one in part because nothing was really superseded. This isn't exactly an area lacking attention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder since this is still open that group battleground behavior was an issue at David's original ban where Jusdafax was also sanctioned. Jusdafax's Unless one assumes bad faith comment is just continuing that same pot stirring from old disputes. That case partly shows why those of us science editors actually in the subject are so cautious about this all.

Otherwise Nosebagbear's comments are a fairly even-handed read of the situation. There are plenty of GMOs that don't deal with glyphosate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side note

Just a slight aside, but I also wanted to update arbs on the general status of the GMO/pesticide topic. Back at the original 2015 case, only a few editors were actually sanctioned just because of the sheer number of problems to sort through. Slowly over time, other disruptive editors were topic-banned (or some interaction bans) as I mentioned with the 13+ sanctions above. However, that left a lot of fatigue on the few editors who did remain trying to handle the tough content while also juggling with problematic behavior from editors and not wanting to run to AE each time giving the appearance of policing the topic. It wasn't until recently that things mostly settled down in 2018 and a flareup that took up a chunk of 2019. That's largely why I'm so cautious from a WP:STEWARDSHIP perspective now.

In general, agricultural topics don't attract as many subject matter experts, but in the real-world, the subject does attract a lot of WP:FRINGE stuff that finds it way to the encyclopedia when you get people coming in with advocacy issues. The volume of that may be higher in things like climate change or alt med, but there are also more editors to handle that in those topics. We've lost some good editors in part because of how long it took to really tamp down on behavior issues here, so I would ask arbs to consider for future GMO/pesticide discussions what their risk tolerance for an editor in the subject should be. I know I'd like to go from maintenance to fleshing out mode in the subject again now that it's been in a relative lull for a few months, but being stuck with new or old behavior problems has often put a stop to that for me. Those of us left in the subject have had a lot on our plates, and while the DS have helped take some unnecessary burden off them, I think I can speak for a lot of us that we shouldn't be handed something that has a decent risk of stirring up the subject again and ending back up at AE/Arbcom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

This seems like a bad idea to me - the anti-GMO brigade are hammering hard at Monsanto right now after the capricious court award. Guy (help!) 22:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

It's a bit sad to see this stall. I thought the appeal had merit and deserved a bit more consideration. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a rather simple request. We are approaching 2 months since the filing. Hopefully this can be handled soon. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosebagbear

While there might not be a benefit to immediately become a hyper-active editor in a field that an editor was recently Tbanned in, not editing in any of it (but still planning to) is almost as problematic.

Certainly we could deduce that the editor is more patient than they were, which is a plus. But we can't tell that their editing has become any better, whether they can handle dispute in their controversial field and so on. Thus, I'd like to advise the following:

David Tornheim's appeal to be declined
A recommendation/request be made to Tornheim to get at least some activity in the now open bits of their original TBAN to show it as a viable field for them
A shorter timescale than ARBCOM refused appeals are often suggested with to be given. I can't see any reason why 3 months of helpful contribution by Tornheim, after his lack of issues thus far, wouldn't be sufficient, so make that the timescale before a permitted re-appeal (rather than 6 months etc etc)

Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

I am in agreement with Seraphimblade and Mr Ernie that David Tornheim’s restriction should be lifted. Four years really is a long time on Wikipedia.

DT’s statement here is direct. His answers to the questions are reasonable, regarding his not editing in the GMO field since he was partially unbanned in 2019: the conditions appeared to him to be open to interpretation.

A look at his User page and his last 500 edits, all made this year, show a diverse ongoing commitment to the project. Unless one assumes bad faith, I believe there is no good reason not to lift the remainder of the topic ban. Jusdafax (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update, May 12, 2020 - I agree with Capeo that this now nearly two-month-old request is indeed "really not fair to David," who shows exemplary patience with the long-lasting process here. However, Capeo provides no diffs regarding DT's editing, and argues that DT should essentially be permanently topic banned, despite the fact that "David has been prolifically and constructively contributing." I would ask, what else exactly does David Tornheim have to do? DT has repeatedly proved his worth to Wikipedia in the nearly four years since he got his only block. Give the guy some credit, assume good faith, and let's move on. Jusdafax (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

I haven’t been around for quite a while now, but I’ve still checked my watchlist with some regularity. This ARCA has been open for way too long and it’s really not fair to David. Decide one way or the other. My opinion, as someone who took part in the whole GMO blowout, is to maintain the status quo. I haven’t done a deep dive, but it seems that David has been prolifically and constructively contributing outside the GMO suite for some time, while avoiding the parts of it he’s not technically TBed from. That’s a good thing. What gives me pause is his contention that he wants the update these articles with “the most recent science.” Much of the conflict regarding David arose from selectively reading sources and insisting on primary and/or discredited sources. I’m not seeing much benefit to opening that door again. Capeo (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

Recuse. Katie^talk 15:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Tornheim, can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area? Typically when topic bans are lifted we would want to see that the appellant (a) understands the reason for their ban, (b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas, and (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward. You claim in your request that you haven't made any edits in the GMO topic area since that ban was lifted, so why does it need to be lifted further? How would doing so benefit the project? – bradv🍁 19:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Tornheim Like Bradv, I'd like to hear what kind of editing you plan to do if the ban is lifted. I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope; normally that would be a good path towards demonstrating that the remaining restriction is unnecessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading David's replies and the comments by others, I am agreeing with Jusdafax that lifting the ban after four years might be beneficial to the project. I also think David is sufficiently warned that any return to old behavior will swiftly result in sanctions again. Regards So Why 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by AndewNguyen at 21:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

AndewNguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

I request that ArbCom open a review (I am not sure which clause this falls under, but I assume it's the discretionary sanctions.)

Statement by AndewNguyen

I am requesting that ArbCom examine the long-running series of disputes over this topic, which have escalated in the past few months, especially the past month. Several administrators and non-administrators have argued an arbitration case or review is needed to address this situation. This view was expressed at Arbitration Enforcement by the admins User:In actu, User:Ivanvector, and User:Barkeep49, and more recently in this discussion by user:SMcCandlish and the 2600:1004 IP user.

The following are some of the recent or current community discussions about these articles, although I may have missed some:

The following are some of the issues that need to be examined:

There is a concern, expressed in several of the recent Arbitration Enforcement reports, that some editors are attempting to remove or exclude well-sourced material from the article for dubious reasons.
There is a concern, expressed mainly in the RFC, that some users (especially NightHeron) are violating BLP policy by repeatedly stating that some living people are white supremacists, without presenting any sources that call them that.
There is a concern, also expressed in the RFC, about possible meatpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing.
There is a concern about whether or not TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC was improper.

I have not added the list of editors that should be parties, but see the comment by In Actu in which he suggested who the parties should be to such a case. If ArbCom decides to open a case or review, I request that they exercise their own judgement about who the parties should be, or follow In Actu's suggestion.

When this situation was escalating at the end of March, I took a break from Wikipedia for 4 weeks, so upon my return I'm disappointed to see that it is continuing to spawn new disputes among the same group of editors. Without ArbCom's intervention, it is likely to continue coming up again and again indefinitely.

@Joe: An argument now being made on the article's talk page, especially by NightHeron, is that the RFC outcome means it's no longer necessary for statements in the article to be based on any reliable source. The argument to ignore what reliable sources say about this topic was made by many of the people who voted "yes" in the RFC, and there was a fear that TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC would be seen as an endorsement of that position. SMcCandlish especially expressed that concern, both during the RFC and during the closure review afterwards. This is the most important concern about whether his closure was improper: whether it will be initerpreted as superseding the WP:Verifiability policy, as appears to indeed be happening. Now that the closure is being interpreted in this way, it seems inevitable that there will continue to be many more noticeboard reports over similar issues.

I don't completely understand the difference between making a request here and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but I made it here because that is what was suggested by the admins at Arbitration Enforcement who argued that a review is needed. I ask that ArbCom please consider this request on its merits, instead of whether it was made in the correct venue. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the time since I made this request, another new noticeboard thread has been opened, so I've added it to the list above. --AndewNguyen (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn I think what SMcCandlish and Ferahgo are saying about the discretionary sanctions not working is that certain editors are now able to violate content and behavioral policies with impunity. For example during the RFC NightHeron apparently doxxed another Wikipedia editor, although the diff is no longer visible. No one else reacted to that or took any action. Isn't doxxing another Wikipedia editor normally a severe offense? If this topic area has reached the point that not even doxxing has any action taken about it, that's a sign that the discretionary sanctions aren't working. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG (R&I)

This may need a new full case. There are two deeply entrenched camps, and there is a good deal of argumentation that seems to an outsider to be intellectually dishonest, a sort of "teach the controversy" approach. Accusations of bad faith abound, not always without merit. Admins have tried to deal with the issue and failed.

Above, we have "there is concern" over TonyBallioni's well-reaosoned close of the recent RfC. That seems problematic: there was no consensus to overturn, and debate was often about the apparent invention of new policies on the fly. Guy (help!) 14:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Following discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Trolling (permalink), 2600:1004:b100::/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) has been blocked from talk:Race and intelligence and I have extended that to this page, following Bradv's comments below, which highlight this IPs disturbing tendency to extend and disrupt discussion of this topic. It appears the IP has an undisclosed conflict of interest, through a close link to a WP:FRINGE player off-wiki.[reply]

It seems likely to me that the removal of this one single individual, with their remarkable talent for argufying, may be transformative. The talk page archives show, to my reading, many examples of stonewalling, sealioning, circular and tendentious argument by this IP and I think we should close this and see what happens without that one highly disruptive, prolific and, as it now turns out, probably bad-faith voice.

I therefore join with those others here who urge rejection of this request, especially since it contains no actual request for amendment or clarification. Guy (help!) 22:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud DGG's comments below. The demarcation between minority and fringe is as vexed - and as hard to discern - as that between science and pseudoscience. The solution is almost always more input from more people who do not have a dog in the fight. Guy (help!) 22:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slatersteven

I was involved in the RFC and made the point that the claim "blacks have a different form of intelligence" is used by some as an example of white privilege (for example our system of maths is set up for the way white brains work). I was pointing out how this can in fact impact on articles about that (after all if its a fringe to say race affects intelligence that applies even when it is used as an excuse for black underachievement). But the RFC came to a conclusion, and I see no reason not to respect our processes. I however would be concerned if it could be shown the close ignored opinions based upon an essay, or presumptions of being a NAZI!.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP editor 2600:1004:b100::/40

Many thanks to AndewNguyen for making this request. As one of the people who thinks that an ArbCom case is needed, I had recently suggested to several other editors that someone should request arbitration. Now that this finally has been brought before ArbCom, I can mention something I've been wanting to mention for about a month, but that would have been inappropriate to bring up outside of ArbCom or AE.

It has been evident to me for a long time that NightHeron is a parody account, most likely being operated by someone associated with the alt-right. It's reasonably well-known that a large portion of the material related to human intelligence and intelligence researchers at RationalWiki is deliberate parodies (see the discussion here and here, among other places). The people who write this material are trying to make RationalWiki such an obvious caricature of left-wing talking points that no one takes the site seriously. Wikipedia has been vulnerable for a long time to the same type of trolling, and that appears to be what's happening now.

It is important to recognize the distinction between actual leftist beliefs, and the beliefs that members of the alt-right claim that leftists hold, and how perfectly NightHeron's editing matches the second description. Aside from race and intelligence, nearly all of NightHeron's editing has been to hot-button political topics such as White privilege, Male privilege, Ilhan Omar, and Abortion. This is not a random selection of topics - it is the precise set of topics that the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory claims are being used to undermine the culture of Europe and the United States. As a further way of advocating this conspiracy theory by basing his edits on its claims, during the RFC NightHeron was actually citing a book by a communist party member, which itself cites the works of Karl Marx, and arguing that this is a mainstream source.

There are three actions in particular that I think demonstrate NightHeron's status as almost certainly a parody account.

First, when NightHeron was challenged to provide a source supporting his statement that Heiner Rindermann is a "diehard white supremacist", the source that he provided was The New Observer, a right-wing fake news site that propagates anti-semitic conspiracy theories. The New Observer article that he cited is not publicly accessible, apparently because it either is paywalled or requires registration to view. By citing this article he let his disguise slip momentarily - why would any non-member of the alt-right not only be reading that site, but have access to the non-public articles there?

Second, as NightHeron explained in his comment here, he has been evading scrutiny with the use of multiple accounts. The explanation he gave there (that his other account uses his real name) is not convincing, because he could simply rename the account if he wanted to avoid editing under his real name. Presumably, his main account is the one that he uses for pushing his actual, right-wing point of view.

Finally, I wish to call attention to NightHeron's comment here, in which he stated that The same IP-editor recently made a similar accusation [of BLP violations] against me on the user-page of another admin, Barkeep49, who'd also been involved in the AfD/DRV. After I learned of the accusation by chance, I was able to defend myself, and nothing came of it. Barkeep49's actual words to NightHeron were, So as to the other pieces, I do think, now that you're here, that you need to be very careful when describing people as white supremacists. More careful than you've been to date - the stuff on Piffer is not nearly strong enough, for instance. NightHeron's statement that Rindermann is a "diehard white supremacist", cited to a right-wing fake news site, came after he was given this warning. So this is a case of an an editor gloating about how he was merely warned by an admin instead of sanctioned, and that he's thus entitled to continue the same behavior. (Incidentally, this behavior also has included an attempt at doxxing another Wikipedia editor.)

None of this is the behavior of a normal Wikipedia editor. But it is exactly the behavior one would expect from a person who is planning, sometime in the future, on writing an article for an alt-right website about how many Wikipedia policies he was able to get away with violating by making an alternate account that pretended to be a leftist. Wikipedia's admins should be embarrassed that they've allowed themselves to be hoodwinked with this tactic, especially if it's allowed to continue even now that I've pointed it out. 2600:1004:B159:2CC4:F8F8:76FE:335B:DEF6 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: If you aren't able to see the evidence for what I'm saying, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the ways that members of the alt-right act when they're impersonating leftists. This is something that happens quite regularly, the NPC Twitter meme being a well-known example. This pattern of behavior becomes fairly easy to recognize after you've seen enough examples of it.

Regarding your question about behavioral issues that AE can't handle, I described one such issue in my comments here and here (the last two paragraphs). This is a case where an intelligence researcher lost his job as a result of the pattern of BLP violations in his Wikipedia article, and it was the catalyst for my becoming involved in Wikipedia, as well as for several other editors. (NightHeron was not the user responsible in this case.) His biography was tagged as an attack page twice, and six different users attempted to remove the violations, but their changes were almost immediately undone in each case. When the attorney of the person that this happened to contacted the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, he was told that it was the responsibility of the Wikipedia community to address this issue. But when the issue was raised at AE, the admins there took no action because the user responsible had not been notified of the discretionary sanctions with the correct template. [3]

All of this happened about a year ago, but the fact that both AE and the WMF legal team took no action in such an extreme case - as well as the fear among many other intelligence researchers that they may eventually lose their own livelihoods in the same way - is the original cause for many of the disputes that are happening currently. 2600:1004:B16D:68CB:B8D2:906A:61F4:A60E (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Gerhard Meisenberg's attorney sent an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, explaining how the additions to his Wikipedia article led to him losing his job, on June 17 of last year. The evidence was presented in that e-mail, but it included personal details that would not be appropriate to post in public. As a member of ArbCom, can you look at the contents of that message?

I don't want to have a long argument with you or act in a way that you consider disruptive, but you must understand that many of the people who feel they're in real-life danger because of this situation are my professional colleagues. So it's very difficult for me to accept that there truly is nothing ArbCom can do about it. 2600:1004:B16D:68CB:B8D2:906A:61F4:A60E (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case you weren't aware, the most recent AE report specifically referred these matters to ArbCom. So for ArbCom to refer them back to AE seems to be saying there are some issues that both ArbCom and AE think it's the other party's job to address. 2600:1004:B16C:96C5:758A:B689:DD57:B12C (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NightHeron

I'd prefer not to waste everyone's time with a detailed reply (or any reply) to the IP-editor 2600.xxx's cockamamie conspiracy theory about me. If anyone wants me to respond to any specific allegation, I'll do that and I'll try to be brief. NightHeron (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the no-voters on the RfC are using this forum to re-argue their position. Most recently, Literaturegeek has made some outrageous statements about the differences between supporters and opponents of the RfC. While claiming to be basing their appeal to ArbCom on core policies, these no-voters are ignoring the core policy that Wikipedia works by consensus. In this case the RfC lasted 35 days, had the participation of about 50 editors, and reached the consensus that the belief that some races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence is a fringe view. The close of the RfC [4] was upheld overwhelmingly by admins at WP:AN [5]. NightHeron (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I declined to respond to the charges against me by the IP-editor (in the statement above), I'd also prefer not to respond to Literaturegeek's barrage of accusations of misconduct against me (in Literaturegeek's statement below). At this point I don't think it's appropriate to re-argue the issues in the RfC or to trade accusations. I think that the real issue is the refusal of some of the RfC's no-voters to accept consensus. NightHeron (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

I do not think that a full case would be warranted at this time. My concern over retaliatory AE filings, which caused me to suggest this, has since abated. I think the content issues are being worked through in the ways described by policy. I think the community in the RfC review and AE actions taken is showing itself capable of handling this dispute for the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that 2600:1004 has now been TBAN'ed by the community from Race and intelligence an action I support. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni (R&I)

I generally agree with Barkeep49 above that I don't think a case is required, and in all honesty I don't think any amendment is needed either. The standard grounds for a case is that the community process is unable to work. In all the recent cases cited, the community process is working. I closed the recent RfC and took it for self-review because I knew otherwise someone would have. That was closed endorsing the outcome both on the merits and as rejecting the argument that my close was somehow improper. That brings an end to the community process for that content based question and the behavioral question that some tried to introduce was also resolved there as not having consensus either.

I'd add the on top of all that I don't see what a case would add. There's nothing particularly new here, and DS already exist. If there is misbehavior in the content areas, just take the people misbehaving to AE. If someone is seeking ArbCom to review a content RfC that has already been reviewed by the community on both behavioral and content questions and resolved successfully on both point, that is outside of ArbCom's remit.

If people feel someone is violating the conduct standards of a DS area, they should request enforcement at AE. If there are people engaging in retaliatory filings, that can also be dealt with at AE. If people are trying to use the closed RfC to argue for things it doesn't support, AE can be used. If people are stonewalling the implementation of a well-attended community RfC on one article's talk page, AE is also an option. There is zero evidence anything other than DS is needed here. People should let the DS process work. It's here to avoid repeated cases over the same issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Note that I have partially blocked the IP range from Talk:Race and intelligence page as a normal admin action. I would have notified them on their user talk page, but of course, no such user talk page exists as such. El_C 03:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by PaleoNeonate

I would like to also mention my post here which includes more context and the RFC was here. I have not had time to work on this since, but considering that we're here, it was my intention to eventually propose as Clarification&Amendment a motion for WP:ARBR&I that is similar to a precedent in the abortion area: WP:ARBAB#IP editing prohibited (temporary measure) and WP:ARBAB#Modified by motion (allowing admins to as a discretionary measure protect talk pages when necessary). —Paleo Neonate – 10:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

Anyone else find it interesting that the person who filed this is a WP:SPA with a penchant for editing from a pro-eugenics POV? That the account was inactive since 30 March and waltzes in to file this now that the RfC has closed? Oh, so very interesting, isn't it? jps (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Regarding the IP, from ANI, "Trolling":

I think the IP's posts to ARCA about editing this topic area because they are colleagues with Gerhard Meisenberg [6] [7] are tantamount to an admission of COI in this topic area. (Or at least WP:RGW.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazing, according to the article, Meisenberg "is a director, with Richard Lynn, of the Pioneer Fund" and those us familiar with the R&I debacle understand that means the IP should be indefinitely topic banned, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am amused to see that Ferahgo the Assassin, a former front-line warrior in the R&I conflicts – who over the course of 6 years was topic banned, site banned, un-sitebanned with R&I restrictions and finally un-restricted [8] – and is still an editor with a definite POV concerning the subject, had the gall to express an opinion here as if she is an impartial observer. I call that chutzpah. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

Except for the RfC closure which was discussed and endorsed at AN, the specific concerns raised here haven't been brought to a noticeboard (aside from side comments in tangentially related threads) or become an intractable situation that needs the attention of ARBCOM. I would expect an editor coming off a month-long hiatus to at least engage in the ongoing talk page discussions before seeking arbitration remedies. If that fails, I don't see anything that can't be resolved through the standard AE/DS process.

More than anything, this topic would benefit from a few admins willing to wade into the mess and address user conduct issues as they happen. Swift admin actions like blocking an IP range and issuing inline warnings can quash bad behavior before it escalates while avoiding noticeboard drama. It's encouraging to see that this taking place and I'm optimistic that our normal consensus building process will suffice for the time being. –dlthewave ☎ 02:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AndewNguyen can you tell us what steps were taken by editors who were aware of the alleged doxxing incident? Did anyone file an ANI or AE report or perhaps send an email to ArbCom? If you're claiming that our processes failed to address the issue, you should present evidence that an effort was indeed made to utilize those processes. –dlthewave ☎ 13:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I think this badly needs further ArbCom review and clarification, if not a whole additional RfArb. (And I'm okay with being named a party, as I've been long-term involved in this and related topics, e.g. as a "voice of reason and science" shepherd at Race (human categorization), and am even responsible for that article title; also the author of WP:Race and ethnicity; and I'm the opener of the back-to-back WP:VPPOL RfCs that led to |religion= and |ethnicity= being removed from most biographical infoboxes. I am definitely involved.)

On Race and intelligence, we've been through months of back-to-back dispute resolution methodologies on this (from AfD attempts to noticeboardings to a recent RfC with a close that said nothing we didn't already know and failed to address the central policy question, about suppression of sources). This has all been basically to no avail at all. The current restrictions and AC/DS regime for this topic (for several years now) have had no useful effect at the community level, only for swiftly blocking trolls/socks (who were already blockable under existing policy anyway). We're right back to the same two entrenched camps trying decide how to slow-editwar their way to a doctrinal victory. This is not how WP is built. My previous comments in the RfC this month, and in previous rounds, and in very recent/ongoing thread at User talk:SMcCandlish#The RFC cover this in more detail than anyone would want.

The short version is that the idea "there is a connection between race and intelligence" is basically a fringe-science viewpoint. However, research demonstrating population differences at various discrete tasks are not always fringe (though they almost always point to socio-economic and other cultural factors, not genetic ones, and it is often later, follow-on, cross-disciplinary research that demonstrates this). Likewise, research demonstrating heritability of minor deltas in performance at discrete cognitive tests of various sorts are also not all fringe. But population != gene != "race"; and isolated cognitive tests (e.g. regurgitation of strings of numbers from short-term memory, or whatever) != "intelligence". Yet there is a putsch here to effectively censor mention of all such research from Wikipedia, including a smear campaign against publishers of such research as "fringe scientists", which is basically a WP:BLP and WP:NPA policy failure. This has been predicated upon an "ends justify the means" far-left extremist position, being brought to bear against the misinterpretation and mis-spinning of such research by racist far-right extremists. It's time for the extremists on both sides of this matter to be barred from the subject area.

What we're dealing with here is an umbrella subject that is basically artificial (both as to "race" and as to "intelligence"), but this is something that people are going to continue overgeneralizing to, both in bad research and in bad press, and which our readers are going to continue searching for and reading about. This is not going to go away. WP has a responsibility to get this right: to present why the central idea is – according to a broad scientific consensus, not just dogmatic socio-politics – pseudo-scientific; what evidence there is of population differences in some discrete cognitive tests (usually statistically insignificant), and why it does not equate to "intelligence" or to "race", but is most often related to level of Westernization, society-internal class and economics, and other cultural biases in the testing; and what claims have been debunked, how, and why.

If we don't do this right, then we effectively cede total control over this topic to far-right webboards, which are going to rely on long-discredited "research" to "prove" a bunch of racist nonsense. WP is the place where, for the average reader, discrediting has to live. It can't live here if people keep mass-deleting all material relating to the claims and the research flaws that led to them, and to their debunking. This cannot be hidden away in the back of the closet. This is one of those "sunlight is the best disinfectant" matters.

While ArbCom cannot decide a content matter, it certainly can decide when particular parties are violating policies and pillars to enforce their own politicized viewpoint, and ban them from the topic. ArbCom can also identify topic-specific PoV-pushing patterns of this sort, proscribe them, and add more DS to enforce those proscriptions, so that a new crop of combatants a month after the current batch are T-banned can't just re-start the same disruption.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that (now T-banned or not), 2600:... makes a good procedural point: "the most recent AE report specifically referred these matters to ArbCom. So for ArbCom to refer them back to AE seems to be saying there are some issues that both ArbCom and AE think it's the other party's job to address." That's not the first time this sort of buck-passing cycle has occurred, and it always resolves back to ArbCom having to clarify or take a new case, so we might as well just get on with it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AndewNguyen: I wasn't even aware of the doxxing/outing you referred to (though the party you name as responsible for it is one of those whose behavior I already thought should be examined with an eye to a T-ban). So, that specific incident didn't have anything to do with my comments above, which are more generalized. This is simply a hot-bed of non-stop editorial strife, in which people at both extremes are getting away with all sorts of things that are counter to policy and to the purpose of Wikipedia. When AE finally gets around to leveraging any of the extant DS about it, it's generally a one-sided application. While I'm sure it does not have the intent of a supervote, it is likely to have the effect of one, due to WP's strongly left-leaning internal editorial bias. I lean that way myself, but I'm self-analytical enough to recognize that it is a bias, and that no matter how much I might agree with the politico-philosophical impetus behind bad-acting antics, they are still bad-acting antics and should not be excused, nor permitted to continue. If the current AE enforcement regime on this topic is having this result, it means that ArbCom hasn't made it clear enough what is proscribed and that it isn't proscribed only for people right of center. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferahgo

SMcCandlish's comment that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is on point. Clearly the discretionary sanctions haven't been effective, at least in recent months. I don't foresee the community being able to untangle the long-term problems in this topic area on its own. I'm curious if DGG has an opinion here, as an arbitrator whom I believe understands the scope and depth of the issues. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn

I am a little confused as to what's happening. I don't actually see any requests for Amendments or Clarification, except a generalized comment by User:Ferahgo saying the discretionary sanctions have not been recently working. But nothing specific is being requested in that post. In any case, I think discretionary sanctions and the dispute resolution process in this area are working just fine. As was stated below, frequent disputes are expected in a topic area such as this. It's only a problem if the dispute resolution process breaks down - and it hasn't. Frankly, I am glad to see it working. It's the way it's supposed to be. It may not be fun sometimes - but that's showbiz. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding that TonyBalloni has given a good summation of the tools currently available to resolve issues, and which issues apply to what venue. An arbcom case is certainly not necessary at this time. In fact, maybe we should post Tony's statement to the top of the R & I talk page (humorous), or at least provide a link to the statement (humorous). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Literaturegeek

The amendment that I think would help, in terms of trust and confidence as well as the long-term future of this topic area, is for RfCs that are likely to lead to major changes to the topic area (e.g. deletion of articles or an RfC that could result in a major rewriting of the topic area as a whole) require to be closed by a 3 admin panel, to guard against bias and WP:SUPERVOTEs. There is a recent example in this topic area where race and intelligence was nominated for deletion: this AfD, wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination), where, if you click the show button for the overturned close, below the three admin close statement, you will see that a very substandard close as delete occurred, which many in the deletion review felt was very POV or even a WP:SUPERVOTE was made that caused a lot of wasted community time in a deletion review and almost resulted in a major article being deleted without just cause. A three admin close panel reached the opposite conclusion to the alleged supervote and overturned it and closed the article as “keep”. See the deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_February_12#Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination). The deletion review was only successful because the Close was so poorly worded where even the closer themselves pretty much said as much in their close, otherwise, like I say, an article could have been deleted without just cause.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another area of clarification that this topic area requires is what takes precedent when an RfC close conflicts with policy? The ‘race and intelligence’ ArbCom case confirms the no original research policy, etc, however the recent RfC close effectively instructs editors to misrepresent the weight and conclusions of academic sources because there really is no academic consensus in this subject area: there is indeed differences of opinions between anthropologists and educational psychologists, neuropsychologists who research intelligence. Take for example this 2020 survey published in Intelligence (journal) of intelligence research psychologists (which actually answered the RfC question but supposedly wikipedians know more than the experts) that found that only 16 percent of experts regarded I.Q. gaps between races to be fully explained by environmental factors, with 43 percent saying mostly genetics and 40 percent saying mostly environmental factors explain the gap. The RfC instructs the community to misrepresent the entire discipline of psychology and falsify an academic consensus that does not exist instead of explaining the controversy neutrally. Although I have never edited the race and intelligence article I did watch list it after becoming involved in the associated Articles for deletion discussion and indeed editors are now actively ignoring NOR/WEIGHT etc., citing on the talk page the RfC close. From following the AfD, RfC etc., I believe that the problem is more complex than ‘racists versus anti-racists’, I think many of the editors fall into two different camps, those who don’t like racism but personally find pseudoscience more unacceptable and those who find racially offensive datasets and interpretations thereof more offensive than pseudoscience/misrepresenting sources. The RfC, if carefully read, shows that ‘Yes votes’ provided mostly original research or misinterpretations of sources to justify their arguments whereas ‘No votes’ were backed by sources and strong WP policy arguments. So what takes precedent, an RfC close or WP policies? Currently the article talk page has turned into a new escalating battleground which I feel attention from ArbCom could benefit. If you would like some diffs I can provide them if requested but will wait to see what the Arbs feedback is first. The question for ArbCom clarification is: should the conclusions of sources and the weight of sources be misrepresented as well as original research be permitted in article editing in order to comply with the RfC close?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to NightHeron

The RfC was hardly a fair environment NightHeron: Editors who voted no were routinely aggressively personally attacked by several editors as being racists, even like myself who have no history of editing in the topic area; these personal attacks undoubtedly put off members of the community from commenting or voting against the RfC or its close review, thus biasing the results. Also during the RfC, authors of RS were repeatedly attacked, mostly by you, as white supremacists if said sources went against the RFC; these attacks were unsourced BLP violations. Requests were made repeatedly to stop making serious BLP violations during the RfC but these requests were repeatedly ignored. As for the community review of the close, that RfC was massive and I doubt more than a few people voting in the review would have read that RfC from top to bottom which is why a three admin panel close would have prevented all of this controversy and division.

NightHeron if my concerns are unfounded that the RfC close encourages, even forces, original research etc., then why are you now implementing the RfC close via original research, misrepresenting sources, synthesising your own original opinions, etc? Why can you not just follow what reliable sources say? See examples below:

NightHeron engaging in original research, misrepresenting sources.

Insertcleverphrasehere requests a source for a change from ‘no direct evidence’ (which was what the source said) to ‘no evidence’ as he quite rightly holds the view that they have very different meanings. NightHeron insists no source is needed to effectively misrepresent/falsify what sources say. NightHeron then justifies original research and misrepresenting sources by inappropriately going off topic and comparing the viewpoint of her opponent to homeopathy rather than arguing with sources. to uphold the RfC NightHeron argues in favour of misrepresenting and misquoting sources.

Insertcleverphrasehere points out to NightHeron that he has inserted original research into the lead of the article and simply requests that it is supported by sources in the body of the article, which NightHeron replies to by declining to remove the original research despite a lack of sources.

NightHeron uses his personal opinion to determine what is fringe for edits to the article, maybe he is correct maybe he is not, who knows, but geeze you need sources and consensus, per WP:NOR.

In these diffs ([9] and [10]) NightHeron personally attacked other editors who disagree with him apologists of scientific racism. This type of behaviour was a constant theme towards people who commented against the RfC and it continues in the topic area.

NightHeron has taken the position that content in reliable sources are reliable except when the reliable sources go against the RfC close, then certain parts of the reliable sources by subject experts become fringe. Thus NightHeron becomes the expert who does an original reanalysing, per WP:SYN, of sources of what parts are reliable and what parts of a source are not and thus sources become misrepresented.

So, yes, there are issues of behaviour and ongoing policy violations occurring in this topic area. My view is the RfC close has exacerbated behavioural issues in this topic area rather than helped.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

( I have only acted as an AE admin here)

With the community topic ban of the IP user or users, I would like to give AE and the wider community another chance to solve this. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

@AndewNguyen: ARCAs usually contain a question about or request to modify specific remedies (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Types of requests). If your intention is to request a new case on race and intelligence, it should be made at WP:ARC with all the parties listed and notified. But personally I would not accept a case on the basis of "concerns" alone. Race and intelligence is a fraught topic that's already subject to multiple sanctions. That there are frequently disputes about it isn't particularly unexpected or problematic in itself. It would be a problem if these disputes weren't being resolved, but almost all the discussions you linked were formally closed by an experienced admin with an appropriate, consensus-based outcome. That would suggest that the normal dispute resolution procedures are working. – Joe (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @SMcCandlish and 2600:1004:B100::/40: Did AE refer this to us? In the thread 2600:1004 linked, Swarm's close was just Consensus here is against unanimously implementing an IP ban. Continue to deal with issues on a case by case basis, and feel free to try to renegotiate this in the community forum. In any case, if we do need to look at this afresh, it needs to be a case request and not an ARCA. The difference is more than procedural hair-splitting: ARC has guidelines on formatting so that we can actually assess whether there is a reason for ArbCom to be involved, will make sure the parties are properly listed and notified, and is much more widely viewed than ARCA. As bradv says below, there is no request here so we will have to archive it soon. Please consider filing a case request if you think this needs further attention. – Joe (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions are already authorized for this topic, so most of the conduct concerns that come up should be able to be handled to AE. If there's something that cannot be handled at AE we can of course have a look, but it's not clear to me that there is any such concern expressed in this thread.
However, I am very concerned by the extraordinary allegations presented by the IP above, for which there is an acute lack of evidence. This does not strike me as an accusation made in good faith. – bradv🍁 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2600:1004:B100::/40, you still have not offered any evidence for your accusation. I don't dispute that there are people who pretend to have the opposite point of view from their own in order to troll others, but your allegations that NightHeron is guilty of this behaviour are baseless. Furthermore, the AE discussion you link lacks evidence, in that it doesn't prove that someone lost their job due to a BLP violation in an article, nor does it provide a clear explanation of what those alleged BLP violations actually are. The aspersions against other editors need to stop. I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but I'll say it anyway: choosing to edit without an account cannot be used as a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. – bradv🍁 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the IP range has now been topic banned by the community, which addresses the concerns I expressed in my previous comment. While some of the opinions expressed above have been enlightening and informative, and those editing the topic area would do well to read them, I still don't see any specific requests to clarify or amend the existing R+I case. Assuming there are no further comments from the other arbs, I think this discussion can be archived. – bradv🍁 01:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested a specific clarification or amendment of the prior case decision that would be helpful, so I don't see anything useful for us to do here at this time. The accusations by the 2600 IP are without merit and I note the subsequent community ban of that editor. The discretionary sanctions authorization remains in place and can be invoked as needed. Questions such as whether certain RfCs should be closed by multi-admin panels are questions of policy not for decision by ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked some time ago to comment,I apologize for not posting this here earlier, but: " I think the question is whether RfC and AE enforcement on this topic is fair, done by neutral admins not having a prejudice on the issue. The number of people involved, their differing amounts of real-world knowledge of the subject, and of Wikipedia , the intractable RW nature of the controversy, the length of time this has been discussed at Wikipedia , all make this a singularly difficult situation.. But whether we have jurisdiction and responsibility depends upon whether we have the right to be the final resort to correct gross failures of NPOV. Earlier committees have indeed thought we did: I refer here to the decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience in 2006 (UTC) and the subsequent decisions based on it. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

an expansion of this comment is forthcoming by Monday. . DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of areas where it is relatively difficult or impossible to distinguish minority science-based positions from fringe positions. This provides an opportunity for those having a particular POV to argue that their opponents are fringe, rather than minority; those with the opposite POV will argue their position is minority, not fringe. People deliberately or inadvertently confuse what is the actual general scientific view now with what it was 20 or 50 or 100 years ago, or think that scientific questions can be settled by finding whoever is the most impressive authority, or the more authoritative journal, or some contrived reason to reject a source that tells against one's position. People assume there is one clear scientific consensus when the situation is amorphous, or just the opposite. Saying that WP adopts a Scientific POV does not necessarily help much.

The result of this is that in many controversial areas the NPOV/SPOV has a tendency to match the preconceptions of a majority of those WPedians who happen to be interested enough in the question to join the argument here. This can cause confusion even in purely scientific areas, including medicine; it can cause great confusion when the question is a mixture of science and politics, as it probably is in R&I; it is blatantly incompatibility with a NPOV in fields which dominated by those who think there is a SPOV that supports one or another political party. We are amused or horrified now by the POV presumptions in the 1906 Brittanica; we should be just as concerned about our own.

I think the whole issue needs to be revisited. We can't say here what the NPOV (or SPOV) is on any particular issue--those are questions of content. We should have a good deal more to say about the fairness of the process by which the contents is determined and expressed in our articles. I'm not sure the question originally asked here is the right formulation for a case, which should not be limited to R&I. Maybe "the process of forming consensus on article content"? or even "ensuring representation of all responsible positions"? DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there's another aspect to it: the often successful attempts to delete articles on the proponents of fringe (and sometimes, even minority views). One example is climate change, with efforts to remove articles on notable scientists often in other fields who have not accepted the scientific consensus in this one. (I don't want to judge, but it seems like attempts to conceal that there are a few genuine scientists who don't accept it, as well as the much larger number of cranks) Objections are typically raised to the sources, or to the number of publications, that would not be raised if their views had remained orthodox. This destroys the apparent NPOV of WP, because if a reference source lists only supporters of one side of a position but not its opponents, a reader coming here would assume we are biased. (There has also been an analogous effort to maximize the number of article on people supporting some forms of political economics (just as an example). It goes in all directions. We cannot judge here at arb com which people or books or beliefs are notable, but we can discuss and try to deal with the process which leads to biased decisions.

What it all amounts to, we need to find a way to deal with the inadvertent result of our process in promoting the dominance of the majority POV, not the NPOV. Maintaining the integrity of our basic policies is our job, tho specific decisions are up to the community . DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Antisemitism in Poland

Initiated by TonyBallioni at 23:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Add additional remedy

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Add additional remedy

Requesting an additional remedy be added by motion to include a general prohibition

Statement by TonyBallioni (Antisemitism in Poland)

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.

SoWhy, not trying to be flippant here, but the problem with the PC idea is that pending changes doesn’t work from a purely technical level. It’s a clunky system that usually leads to more problems on an article than just leaving it unprotected, and also doesn’t prevent anything from the edit warring perspective. There’s a reason the existing PC1 is the least used form of protection: it usually just creates more work for people than dealing with live vandalism. Compare the pending changes log to the protection log. The last 50 entries for PC go back a week. For protection it goes back ~12 hours. There’s a reason for that.TonyBallioni (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv going off of Nigel Ish’s point, maybe go with The history of Jews and Antisemitism in Poland, including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed which 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)[reply]
Bradv, that’s no different than we have now with DS. The issue here is that we can’t tell where these users (and it’s not just Icewhiz) will show up, and they’re causing a real strain in the topic area. On the WW2 vs. “Jews in Poland” scope: I think WW2 is a bit broad, because what you’re really fighting over is the historical relationship between individuals who are Jewish and Poland as a whole. This of course includes the Holocaust, but you have other articles where there have been flare ups and socks are likely to show up at some point: Paradisus Judaeorum and Jew with a coin being non-WW2 era articles where this conflict has extended. I think you can change the scope to be that to address the valid concerns about WW2 being very broad, while also addressing the area that’s at the core of this conflict. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

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)[reply]

PS. Just noting that the SPI above has ended and ben archived, with another block for Icewhiz sock KasiaNL (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) that would not be stopped by 500/30 (that account did not reveal its "true nature" until passing the 500/30 threshold). Again, I think 500/30 will help, but it will not stop the most disruptive and dedicated attempts to disrupt the TA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: I concur with Nigel that we should not cast the protection net too widely. Crucially, most of "Polish history in WWII" articles do not intersect with Polish Jews, and have not seen any problematic editing. The disruption is limited to the topic of Polish-Jewish history, mainly related to WWII (which, btw, for Poland starts in 1939, not 1933; there were no Polish Jews or Poles in China or Japan...). I suggest the scope of whatever remedy is here to be limited to "Polish-Jewish history in World War II". I don't think articles related to this topic before or after the war were significantly affected (ex. ghetto benches or Polish 1968 political crisis), though there was some disagreement re the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, but that article wouldn't be covered by your proposed wording anyway, and I am not sure if a remedy for "Polish-Jewish history 1939-present" or even wider would be justified. I think PJ39-45 is enough since most of this is really related to what happened during the war (or immediately afterward, Kielce pogrom, hmmm, but it didn't see disruptive editing yet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

Full support. There are a lot of IPs, "socks", newbies and other unfamiliar "faces" around who are very definitely not Icewhiz,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] 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.[21] François Robere (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000, Nigel Ish, and Nosebagbear: The definition of the TA by admins (and later ArbCom) was always lacking. The scope of these discussions goes beyond WWII both towards current affairs (LGBT rights, Islamophobia, Law and Justice) and historical events (Paradisus Judaeorum, History of Jews in Poland). A better definition of the TA would be "World War II and the history of Minorities in Poland, including current affairs". François Robere (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin:

I also ran "Wikiblame" on the Anti-Polish sentiment edit.[22] The account that added it was active for less than a month, and made one more edit that bears the same characteristics - suspiciously anti-Jewish and unsourced.[23] That edit is still in the article.[24]
The Numerus clausus bit was first added by PeterC in 2004,[25] but the source was only added in 2016 by Zezen.[26] I couldn't check it, but given that the Numerus Clausus is fundamentally antisemitic and the publisher is a Jewish institution, I find it difficult to believe that it stated it as-is.
The addition to Polish Armed Forces in the West has some issues around WP:APL#Article_sourcing_expectations and WP:PRIMARY, but seems interesting enough that it should've been brought to Talk rather than removed as WP:UNDUE.

It's true that none of these would've been done had it not been to some IP or "sock"; but given the preponderance of destructive edits from these classes of editors (including plenty of right-wing ethno-nationalists), as well as the fact that the community has few tools to deal with editors for whom Icewhiz (and anything that vaguely resembles Icewhiz) has become such a major concern that the question of content has been pushed aside, I think that some sort of PP (whether 500/30 or something else) would serve an important role in stabilizing the TA. François Robere (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

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)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

(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)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

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)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

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:

A BLP that is a subject of antisemitic editing, such as [27] from an IP or incoherent, also vaguely antisemitic confirmed accounts such as [28].

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)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Nigel Ish

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)[reply]

Reply to Bradv - The difference is that in practice that the existing rules aren't applied to the whole impossibly diffuse and broadly construed topic area - the actual disruption which this proposal is intended to stop doesn't occur on articles like ORP Błyskawica (Polish warship - "Fewer than 30 watchers") or Supermarine Spitfire (flown by Polish pilots), or SMS M85 (German warship sunk during the invasion of Poland - again "Fewer than 30 watchers") which under this proposal would be under permanent 30/500 protection, which on little watched articles would be an effective prohibition on new editors from editing.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

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)[reply]

Statement by Nosebagbear

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)[reply]

Statement by SarahSV

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:

1. On 20 May at Numerus clausus, a one-edit account removed what seemed to be a justification for antisemitism (because of the way it was written), supported by a link to a Polish-language book with no further citation details. Piotrus reported the account as an Icewhiz sock and called the edit "POV-pushing".

2. On 19 May at Polish Armed Forces in the West, a new SPA, Semper honestus, added a paragraph about a Polish WWII concentration camp in Scotland and the antisemitism faced by Polish-Jewish soldiers. I haven't checked the edit or the sources, but it has the potential to be an interesting addition to the article. Piotrus removed it. Semper restored. Piotrus removed. Semper followed up on talk, then restored and expanded it.

3. On 12 May at Anti-Polish sentiment, an IP removed an unsourced/poorly sourced and arguably antisemitic passage. It was supported by a bare URL that leads to several articles in Polish, so it's unclear what the source is. The edit concerned a saying, "our tenements, your streets" ("Wasze ulice, nasze kamienice") that was attributed to Jewish landlords in Poland: you own the streets, but we own the buildings (source). This saying was apparently very damaging. It was added in 2012 without a source by Cambrium, a little-used account. The bare URL source was added in 2019 by Xx236.

Piotrus restored the edit. KasiaNL, now blocked as an Icewhiz sock, removed it with the edit summary "source abuse". Piotrus restored. Another SPA removed it. Folly Mox, a sporadically used account, restored. François Robere removed it as unsourced and started a discussion on talk.

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)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Antisemitism in Poland: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Antisemitism in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

Noting that I (and I'm sure other arbs) have read the thread, but I'm waiting a couple of days for more input before commenting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find the proposal reasonable. Maxim_(talk) 13:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for more input like NYB. Both PC and SEMI do not require any ArbCom motion and can already be applied under WP:PP where disruption allows for it although of course that won't stop autoconfirmed socks. While I'm not a fan of flagged revisions as used by other projects, maybe these kinds of problems make it worthwhile reconsidering authorizing WP:PC2 as a tool like ECP (i.e. only to be used with strict ArbCom oversight and authorization)? Regards So Why 08:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very reasonable request. Since the ban of Icewhiz, good-faith editors in this topic area have spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with edits from new users and trying to figure out whether they are legitimate new users or a very experienced editor pretending to be new, and we need some new tools to be able to deal with that. Even without the sockpuppetry aspect, it makes considerable sense for new users not to be able to edit the content directly given the extra sourcing expectations in effect. I also concur with TonyBallioni's assessment that pending changes is not the blanket solution here – while it may work for some low-traffic articles, the system completely falls apart when the article is subject to edit warring or edit conflicts, particularly between autoconfirmed and non-autoconfirmed editors. I shall work on a motion. – bradv🍁 16:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel Ish and TonyBallioni: this is the same topic area that is currently subject to the article sourcing restriction of this case. Would it not make sense to keep these two in sync?
I realize that this is going to prevent some good-faith editors from making their edits directly, but it's a trade off against the amount of disruption present in this topic area. Extended-confirmed edit requests usually get tended to quite promptly, and there is a much larger pool of editors capable of dealing with these requests than there are admins familiar with the behaviour of Icewhiz socks. – bradv🍁 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel Ish: Rather than change the topic area, the other option would be to only authorize this for areas with a history of disruption or sockpuppetry, or where an uninvolved administrator believes that such disruption will be likely. I agree that an article about a warship isn't likely to cause a problem. TonyBallioni, thoughts? – bradv🍁 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also waiting for some more input, but I hear the complaints about disruption and I'm leaning toward supporting Bradv's motion as something we should try. @Guerillero: T&S has been aware for some time. Katie^talk 15:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Antisemitism in Poland

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.

- 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 the methods mentioned above.
- Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Proposed, per my comments above. – bradv🍁 16:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support. Reluctant because 500/30 represents a serious step back from our general policy of welcoming new editors to contribute to the encyclopedia, and it's a shame it is ever necessary to impose it. Support because I accept the consensus of those most experienced with this topic-area that such a drastic step has become necessary in this instance. I hope that it won't be necessary to continue this level of protection permanently and that at some point we will be able to relax it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what NYB said (more eloquently than I could have). Regards So Why 19:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. unfortunately seems to be the best solution. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I've wordsmithed this a bit so as not to provide overlap with DS already in effect for the Eastern Europe topic area. Blocks, topic bans, and other remedies should be handled through DS – the intent of this motion is to allow preemptive extended-confirmed protection of articles in this topic area. Further comments and wordsmithing welcome. – bradv🍁 17:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should adopt Nosebagbear's suggestion of a narrower topic area. We can always add new areas if it proves necessary but I agree with Nosebagbear that there are sufficient examples of articles that this would apply to that are not (currently) the focus of these disruptive activities and are also unlikely to become the focus in the future. Regards So Why 10:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to use Nosebagbear's wording. I know this is still a bit broader than Piotrus suggests, but this should also cover the rise of antisemitism prior to 1939, which has also been a point of contention. – bradv🍁 15:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4

Initiated by Nableezy at 06:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

notification of El C

Statement by Nableezy

I'd like some clarification on the awareness requirements for the 1RR. My reading of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions is that the only thing that requires awareness are sanctions enacted under 5A (discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator), and that the 1RR is a general sanction that does not require formal awareness of the discretionary sanctions for the topic area and that users may be blocked for violating that sanction without any formal alert (obviously a request to self-revert being offered). Is that correct, or is formal notification of the discretionary sanctions required prior to any violation of the 1RR required?

Statement by El C

Statement by Zero0000

In the case of articles with an ARBPIA editnotice, that notice whacks you in the face as soon as you hit the "edit" button. So I wouldn't oppose a ruling that the existence of the notice implies awareness of the sanctions. Zero^talk 07:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni (ARBPIA)

I’ll ping Callanecc on this as he’s been helpful explaining this before, but traditionally the understanding was that the General Prohibition was not DS, but a direct sanction from ArbCom. As such, it did not require formal DS awareness. From a practicality perspective, yeah, this is helpful to not be DS. No one isn’t warned first, and most people in these areas know the rules and the formal notification doesn’t accomplish much. For 500/30 in particular, requiring the same requirements of DS could actively work against the sanction. We do have editors who intentionally search for pages not under ECP so they can edit them because they’re that passionate about the issue. Enforcing 500/30 with the page level requirements for DS would effectively make it protection-only, which would cause issues. Blocks for 500/30 aren’t that common, but we do need them as a tool, and the DS awareness criteria there would work against the intent of the sanction: to prevent new editors from causing disruption in this area, which is very difficult to define and preemptively protect. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc

Feels strange commenting here! Exactly as Tony said, sanctions that ArbCom imposes directly (as in not by an admin under DS) operate with a separate system of rules. Unless the ArbCom decision requires that a warning be given before a sanction is imposed then a warning is ArbCom-mandated. However, a best practice approach would require that before being sanctions an editor knows what they're doing is wrong. If they're attempting to, for example, game the system as Tony suggests then they definitely know what they're doing is wrong and can be sanctioned without a formal warning having been given. Just regarding Zero0000's point above, it's important to consider that people editing using the mobile interface won't be shown the edit notice so that needs to be considered if using only that to determine whether the editor knows about the sanctions and so should be sanctioned or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Just a short note that I read the first three arbcom member comments here and I am... very positively surprised. In my professional view as a sociologist who studied, among other things, ArbCom, English Wikipedia is way too into punitative blocks, with prevention being sidelined. To hear three members of ArbCom say otherwise, and do it very clearly, is very refreshing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

Neither the 500/30 restriction nor the 1RR restriction require a formal alert in order to be enforced. However, in my experience most editors who violate 1RR are warned and asked to revert before they receive a block, and that approach should continue to be encouraged. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and this policy extends even to arbitration enforcement blocks. – bradv🍁 14:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What Bradv says. A notice/warning is not required, but we don't have be jerks about it. Having the authorization and ability to block without warning doesn't mean that blocking without warning is necessarily a good idea. Katie^talk 14:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with both of the above. As I've written before, we have become far too obsessed with procedural requirements and formalities. The bottom line is that an editor should never be blocked for making an edit that would normally be acceptable but violates a discretionary sanctions restriction, if there's a reasonable doubt as to whether the editor was aware of the restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others, and I think we ned to amend arb com policy to make it more explicit. The primary purpose of arbcom is to settle disputes, not punish editors. Sometimes a person is so disruptive that a dispute can only be dealt with by removing them from the field, but do do this by discretionary sanctions is usually a very poor idea, because it is much too sticky. For arb com to sanction, a majority vote of a committee to do it; for an ordinary block, another admin can unblock, and if challenged it goes to AN and the the block needs to be reviewed by consensus ; but for DS a single admin can do it, and it is almost impossible to revert--the ds process is biased towards keeping the block. In other words, a single editor can do what arb com itself considers beyond its acceptable practice.

The absolute minimum is to greatly simply the rules for notice, which have been getting progressively complicated beyond what anyone can decipher.

But the basic reform is that the DS should be removed unless there is an affirmative consensus of uninvolved admins to retain it. (This is the opposite of present policy at WP:AC/DS section 9.2-- an appeal should succeed unless there is a clear consensus of uninvolved admins to sustain it). A further improvement could be made by limiting the time length of such sanction against individuals to 1 week at the very most, unless affirmatively endorsed by the community. A second improvement would be is restricting the types of individual DS to bans, topicbans, interaction bans, or page bans, with no special or usual requirements beyond the standard. A third would be limiting the number of times a single admin can do DS action agains an individual. (Similar restrictions might well apply to community blocks and bans, but arb com probably cannot legislate that on its own, except by accepting a willingness to review all bans and blocks, which is permitted by policy, but limited by our current practice, and is probably beyond our capability ). As is obvious here, the necessary changes will be complicated.

There is fortunately an easier way: all DS should be turned into ordinary restrictions, and DS never again enacted as a remedy. This is fuly within the power of arb com; it is our own internally invented procedure. They were originally done because there were unblockable editors--situations where some editors could not be blocked because their admin friends would immediately unblock; this is no longer a problem, as few such irresponsible admins remain. At present, the cure is worse than the disease, DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4