Requests for clarification and amendment

Initiated by Icewhiz at 10:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Eastern Europe arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments
2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments
3. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments

• sourcing restriction for non-English sources for Jew-Polish relations.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments

• 500/30 protection for Jew-Polish relations.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments

• 1RR for Jew-Polish relations.

Statement by Icewhiz

In the past year, editing in the topic of Jewish history in Poland has been difficult. While WP:NOENG is policy - stating a preference for English sources of the same quality when available (generally the case for Holocaust history), and quotation requirements when challenged - NOENG has not been followed in this topic area. Non-English sources of a dubious nature have been inserted into articles, even BLPs, and in some cases, the content has failed verification: not present in the cited sources, contradicted by others. Requests for quotations and a rationale for use have gone unanswered, or dismissed with "the source is reliable" or "WP:AGF and Offline sources".

Admins at AE are reluctant to dive into such issues. This recent case was closed by @Sandstein: with: "Personally, the matter is too complicated and too much tied to content disputes for me to feel comfortable taking action; AE is better suited to relatively straightforward cases of misconduct." [1]. I understand the sentiment here; dealing with users introducing content that fails WP:V when the cited sources aren't online, aren't in English, and/or are very long is difficult. The challenge of tackling source misrepresentations is evident in past AE threads:

Most of the complaints were on sourcing quality and misrepresentations of sources, while editors were sanctioned for a variety of conduct issues, such as personal attacks and battleground behavior. Admins discussed the possibility of sourcing restrictions (academic and/or English only), or enforcing misrepresentation of sources. A sourcing restriction was applied to Collaboration in German-occupied Poland where the situation did improve following the restriction, but no sourcing restriction was applied elsewhere. Disputes in the topic area have involved numerous other articles (WWII history, geographic locations, BLPs in the field).

I will note that use of sources is further complicated by the legislation which criminalized publication in Polish media of claims of Polish complicity in crimes committed during the Holocaust.^[1][2][3]

There are excellent mainstream Polish-language academic sources, referenced by academia outside of Poland. In fact, the Polish Wikipedia often has a balanced representation of the subject matter (see this 2015 oped on a long-running WP:HOAX in Stawiski: "Surprisingly, the Polish Wikipedia articles evidence greater willingness to admit Polish participation in massacres of Jews." corrected in 2018) Unfortunately, sources in Polish introduced to English Wikipedia are often not high-quality mainstream academic writing, but rather right-wing newspaper op-eds, interviews, blog posts, and pulp journals/books.

Please see general examples of misrepresenting sources: (more are available on request)

Possibly disruptive edits by non-EC users:

I request that ARCA consider the following:

1. 500/30 protection for the topic of Polish-Jewish relations.
2. 1RR for the topic of Polish-Jewish relations.
3. A sourcing restriction. Some possibilities:
   1. Revert restriction - editors performing reverts of challenged material are responsible for verifying the contents. Failure to verify, and provide supporting quotes, is sanctionable.
   2. consensus for non-English sources: In disputes over foreign-language sources in the subject area of Polish-Jewish relations, disputed sources are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them. (similar to WP:NOCONSENSUS EL policy).
   3. Only English-language academic sources for historical subjects.
   4. Excluding low-quality non-English sources - Blogs, websites, and media sources that are subject to censorship (e.g. see the WP:HISTRS proposal). High-quality English-language sources can be found in most topics.

Such sourcing restrictions will turn "content disputes" on foreign-language sources that are difficult for enforcing admins to verify themselves into actionable violations of a sourcing restriction. As copious and numerous English language sources are available in Holocaust studies, a restriction won't limit our source pool much; reputable non-English writers get translated to English or analyzed in English language secondary works. Consistent introduction of material that fails WP:V should be taken seriously, however expecting admins at AE to read 50 pages in a foreign language is not reasonable. Our goal should be that Wikipedia conforms to mainstream academic scholarship on the Holocaust, and I believe such measures would be a step forward. A limited measure in ARCA regarding sourcing (in line with AE admin comments over several cases) & non-EC edits might lead to fewer disruptions, an easier time at AE (fewer cases), and can be achieved without a full-fledged case.

RSN comment - while RSN can be quite lively if, say, Fox News is discussed - discussion of more serious sourcing issues - particularly if not in English - ends up as a discussion between the same INVOLVED editors with very little outside input. I will note I have also seen this on ARBPIA or say in this discussion on sourcing on an Indian language/script. Outside editors rarely get involved if it involves more than "knee jerk" response. The end result is that RSN, as it doesn't actually widen the discussion, ends with the same lack of consensus, between the same editors, on the article. At present - my feeling is that RSN isn't really functional for most non-English sources (as well as niche ares). WP:NOENG (preferring English sources, translations and quotations upon challenge for non-English sources) is policy. In practice my feeling is that it is not enforceable, and nor is the introduction of information failing WP:V - as long as it isn't clear black/white Holocaust denial - one can throw 50 pages of non-English citation at something (even when good English sources are available), even stonewall at providing quotations - and it would still be a non-actionable "content dispute".Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Since 1) I've been quoted by Icewhiz (through not notified, I refer specifically to this diff), and 2) this does concern one of my primary content areas, as I've created dozens articles on Polish-Jewish topics, such as Maria Roszak just few days ago and 3) this contains the most absurd request I've seen in my ~15 years here ("sourcing restriction for non-English sources for Jew-Polish relations."), I feel I should make a statement.

First. Regarding the 1RR restriction request, the "500/30 protection" (what is this, btw? I've never heard such term used on Wikipedia before... it is a form of semi-protection) and others (request to verify sources before reverting, etc.), as someone who has seen various edit conflicts in related topic areas in dozen+ years, including some that ended up at ArbCom, it is my view that there's no significant amount of vandalism, or long term edit warring, or any other malpractices that would raise to the level requiring any special treatment for this topic area or even for any particular articles (one can check history of major articles like Polish Jews or The Holocaust in Poland or such to see they are generally stable). While it would be nice to force editors to use higher quality sources, there's no reason to treat Polish-Jewish topic area any different from the rest of Wikipedia. While there are occasional disagreements, they are not raising above the usual noise level in this area.

Second, it would be absurd to ban or restrict non-English sources. AFAIK this hasn't been done for any topic area, and rightly so, as for each language there are plenty of reliable sources. To say that Foo-language sources (or anything that's not in English) cannot be used for XYZ-topic is a very serious accusation for any scholarship. While there are some particular cases we limit sources, they are very rare - I think there's a general consensus to be careful with Nazi-era sources, for example, but even then, there's no blanket rule saying that no Nazi-era sources are allowed (through perhaps there should be, I can similarly think of issues with ISIS sources, etc. - but those are extreme cases and we are hardly anywhere near this level of seriousness here). Over the years I've cautioned some people to be careful with Soviet-era sources for some topics, or modern Putin-era Russian historiography, and I concur there are some indications some (but certainly not all!) modern Polish historiography works exhibits a worrisome political agenda not unlike that found in Putin's Russia, and it is good for editors to realize this, but overall, WP:RS covers such situations pretty well, and if needed WP:RSN can be brought to bear on specific cases (ex. see this RSN discussion Icehwiz started, which IIRC led to the decision to stop using Paul (an English-language source, btw) as a source in this topic area. It's a proof that current tools and structures work, no special treatment is needed. To ban (and remove?) Polish and other non-English sources from Polish-Jewish topics would do immense damage to the project. Many articles in categories such as Category:Polish Righteous Among the Nations or Category:Jewish ghettos in Nazi-occupied Poland are based on Polish-language sources that simply do not exist in English. To ban sources ranging from Polish Biographical Dictionary to works by scholars from the Jewish Historical Institute or works published by many other Polish-Jewish organizations in Poland would be, IMHO, ridiculous. (As for 'remove low quality sources' plea, of course I support it - but to repeat myself, that's just like saying 'please enforce existing policies like RS'. Doh. Sure. Let's. We all agree. In all content areas. Nothing for ArbCom do look at here).

Nonetheless, the fact that such ridiculous request has been made bears considering in light that Icewhiz has often criticized Polish-language sources (ex. just yesterday here, or few months ago numerous times here - just search for NOENG; it's pretty much all Icewhiz criticizing NOENG/Polish sources; same here). While his criticism has not always been without merit (as sometimes he correctly identified low-quality sources), I don't see any relation between low quality sources he (or others, including myself) identify, and language. Sometimes we find and remove low quality Polish sources, sometimes they are English, occasionally they are in another language altogether. Language is not an issue. The fact that one can seriously make such request (April Fools has come and gone...) makes me wonder about their judgement, since to effectively try to argue that all non-English sources should be treated as if they were Nazi-German era works (i.e. automatically disqualified on the subject matter of Jewish history/culture/etc.) is not a sign of a sound editorial judgement.

Bottom line, if an editor feels that he has lost too many arguments, he should not turn to WP:FORUMSHOPPING. And trying to do so here may result in rather heavy WP:BOOMERANG. Because while there is nothing particularly wrong with Polish-Jewish topics on English Wikipedia (they are reasonably stable and neutral), there is some evidence that some editors are developing WP:BATTLEGROUND-like mentality, evidenced for example by spurious AE and even ArbCom-level requests (see my related wiki-essay). And that may be something that ArbCom may want to investigate, because a number of meritless requests at AE/ArbCom boards is an indicator of a potential problem (one that could warrant for example a ban from submitting spurious requests of such kind in the future). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

Sourcing is bad on all sides in this area... these are just a few small examples I've run across ... I'm sure if I dug deeply, I'd be able to find plenty of others. Note that I've very carefully not pointed out who did these various problems - because that just feeds the battleground mentality.

• replacing Steiner's Treblinka which is not remotely a reliable source. See Jean-François Steiner for the controversy about his work. This sourcing stayed in this article for entirely too long (something like 8 or 9 years)
• See Talk:Koniuchy massacre#Sourcing..., Talk:Koniuchy massacre#Garbled ref, and heck, the whole rest of the talk page. But the two referenced sections detail issues with sourcing without going into who was evil for adding/removing them.
• See also Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 13#Holocaust section-important parts missing, where I dug into some of the sourcing and discovered some severe issues of misrepresentation. Then there's Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 12#Paulinów incident and Hotel Polski affair where more problems were detailed.
• Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)#Troubling sourcing.... and Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)/Archive 6#Sourcing policy, and Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)/Archive 5#Problem with source... also detail issues with sourcing occuring in this topic area.
• These two edits show how a picture was miscaptioned for ... years? ... in one of our more important Jewish ghetto articles - here the caption is changed from "Jewish welcoming banner for the Soviet forces invading Poland. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo)" to "Banner in Yiddish welcoming the Soviet forces in 1939. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo)". More digging resulted in this change, where the actual circumstances are "Election notice to the People's council of Western Belarus, Białystok, taken during first days of German occupation in July 1941" note the original caption was based on this source where the google translate of the text says nothing close to what is claimed in the caption. A fuller discussion of this issue takes place at User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/December#For your wall of distortionist shame.

It's not just the troubling/sloppy sourcing that's occurring (and these are likely the tip of the iceberg), it's the constant battleground mentality that affects most editors in this area. One person adds something that's sloppily sourced, the other side reverts and screams bloody murder on the talk page, but then that second side adds something else that's also sloppily sourced and then the first side starts screaming bloody murder. And everything is accompanied by endless reverts ... there is not any way for third party editors who aren't invested in the conflict to actually contribute for any length of time because it's just so dreadfully draining. 1RR doesn't seem to help, because there are multiple editors on each "side" so ... the reverts just roll in and people who aren't on a side just give up and walk away - I've done it often enough.

I don't know if there are any answers. On days when I'm terribly discouraged, I think banning everyone on both sides might help but...I'm afraid that won't solve the problems, which unfortunately are tied to academic and political debates that have become so contentious that they are spilling over into wikipedia.

Pinging SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), both of whom I've obliquely mentioned here. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nihil novi

The initiator of the present discussion writes that non-Polonophones may have difficulty verifying sources that are not in English. For this reason, where the original Polish texts have been provided, e.g. in the references, I have often translated them into English. I have also suggested that the original Polish texts routinely be so provided, and that I will be happy to render them into English. I stand by my suggestion and offer. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

@Piotrus: 500/30 (also known as extended-confirmed protection, or 30/500) is a special type of semi-protection that restricts accounts with less than 500 edits or have been registered for less than 30 days from editing certain pages. That is to say, an account that was registered 10 years ago but has only made 404 edits would be unable to edit a page under 500/30 protection, as would an account that has made thousands upon thousands of edits within 24 days of signing up. Both conditions must be met for an account to be granted extended-confirmed status, permitting them to edit a 500/30 protected article. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

If the committee accepts this proposal now, it won't be a moment too soon. Throughout the discussions in this topic area we've seen (in no particular order) book summaries, liturgical press, Geocities-SPS, press releases, Ph.D students on popular websites, censorship based on supposed Communist background, independent authors, potentially antisemitic and pseudonymic authors, and more (other examples here: [25][26]). Piotrus is right in asserting that current policy was enough to resolve all of these problems, but WP:RS alone wasn't enough: we had RfCs on writers you never heard of, and days-long discussions on sources with less than 5 citations globally (which were introduced to the discussion as "notable", "important", or even "preeminent" historians). In several cases editors introduced what would later be deemed a non-RS to dozens of articles at the same time; in another, a plagiarizing source was removed 8.5 years after it was discovered. Piotrus is wrong, however, in suggesting this is "forum shopping" trying to rehash past disagreements - those we mostly managed, with much time and angst; rather, this is an attempt to prevent future ones by raising the bar on sourcing, so that we're left with actual content disputes rather than biography hunts and repeated translation requests.

Nihil novi has indeed made an effort translating and making sources accessible. This removed some of the language barriers, but did not solve several other problems: out of context quoting (where you'd need the whole page rather than 2-3 sentences); low-quality sources; inaccessible materials (low circulation, out of print etc. - often the result of low quality); and editors refusing to supply quotations or exact citations of their materials - all problems that would be resolved by this proposal.

Which leads me to a fact central to all of this: WWII is a major area of scholarship, and virtually all reputable sources end up being published in English. Sources that don't are either undiscovered or disreputable; if they're undiscovered (old and forgotten, or new and yet to be translated), then it's not our job to introduce them into the mainstream (in some cases it could even constitute WP:OR); and if they're disreputable, then we shouldn't use them anyway. And so our choice here is essentially between stability and novelty: do we use the freshest materials, even those that are yet to be translated; or the stablest materials - those that have garnered the broadest attention and acceptance? In topic areas that are this prone to edit warring and disagreement, I'd argue for the stablest.

And one final note on admins: Among the host of... ineffective admins, Ealdgyth has been the only one willing to take this topic seriously and try to make sense of who's who and what's what; the only one to actually go through the sources and try to mediate compromise - or just enforce the rules - instead of waiting for things to repeatedly explode at ANI/AE. Otherwise the boards have been nearly useless, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.[27][28] Whatever other decision you reach, you should pass this stern message to admins: an effective admin is one who gets involved and dives deep into the disagreements, not one who sits on the sidelines and only occasionally and selectively applies policy. An effective admin is not a policy-application machine, but a person who reasons with depth[29] and is willing to make sure things get done. If you're willing to invest yourself in being an effective admin, then by all means do so - you have the backing of the community. But if you don't, then stay away. François Robere (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tatzref

This request is, in my view, misplaced. There is no valid justification for restricting discussion on historical subjects only to English-language academic sources or imposing a requirement of consensus with regard to non-English, specifically Polish language sources. This would simply erase or block important research by Polish historians that is not available in English or is not mentioned in English texts. A typical case in point is the following. Icewhiz erased the following text in its entirety from the article on History of the Jews in Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland), and replaced it with their own:

12:23, 12 March 2019‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 219,143 bytes +1,651‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property: Remove content as it failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source, and was contradicted by available English RSes. Replace with content cited to academic English-language sources available online.)

A restitution law "On Abandoned Real Estates" of May 6, 1945 allowed property owners who had been dispossessed, or their relatives and heirs, whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property under a simplified inheritance procedure. The law remained in effect until the end of 1948. An expedited court process, entailing minimal costs, was put in place to handle claims. Applications had to be examined within 21 days, and many claims were processed the day they were filed. Poles often served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. Jewish law firms and agencies outside Poland specialized in submitting applications on behalf of non-residents. Many properties were also transferred and sold by Jewish owners outside this process.^[1] The American Jewish Year Book reported, at the time, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”^[2] Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed, for example, more than 520 properties were reclaimed in two county towns of Lublin province alone (281 applications in Zamość, and 240 in Włodawa - some applications involved multiple properties).^[3]

All of this information is based on reliable sources produced by reputable, professional Polish historians (Alina Skibinska, Lukasz Krzyzanowski, Krzysztof Urbanski, Adam Kopciowski). Moreover, the information about postwar property restoration is based on primary research into hundreds of Polish court records for each town that is mentioned. Alina Skibinska states, in relation to Szczebrzeszyn, that at least one third of the 210 private properties belonging to Jews before the war were returned to their owners or their heirs by 1950, and that almost all of these properties were very quickly sold to Poles (Klucze o kasa, p. 562). She goes on to assess the workings of the local municipal court: the vast majority of claims were favorably dealt with; the pace at which this was done was very speedy, as many of the claims were allowed the day they were received or very soon after; the judges very often overlooked deficiencies in the applications (Klucze i kasa, p. 568-569).

The text that Icewhiz substituted uses publications of poor quality with no sources cited for the relevant claims (Laurence Weinbaum, The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust), publications that do not look into actual court records and outcomes of property claims (Michael Meng, Shattered Spaces), or publications that refer to selected court records but do not undertake a systematic investigation of the records of any one town (Cichopek-Gajraj, Beyond Violence), and then make sweeping generalizations that the in-depth investigations of court records do not support. Moreover, the research into Polish court records fully accords with the monitoring that Jewish organizations were conducting at the time. The American Jewish Year Book, a highly reliable source authored by academics, reported in 1947-1948, that “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” The postwar decrees in question were introduced for the benefit of the Jews, with a much simplified and cheaper process than the regular court inheritance procedures, which one could always resort to. Icewhiz simply wiped all this out as allegedly “failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source” because it doesn’t accord with what he thinks the historical record should be. This smacks of censorship and is a disastrous forecast for the state of such articles. Tatzref (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Further clarifications.Tatzref (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Tatzref (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I believe that all editors who use sources which a typical English-speaking editor will have great difficulty verifying should be willing to provide quotations and/or translations. Not just foreign language sources, but rare sources too. But that's a project-wide fundamental issue which shouldn't be addressed on a per-area basis.

Concerning the specific requests:

• Items 1 and 2: no problem
• Items 3.1: X inserts text+source, Y deletes it, Z reverts Y. Is Z now personally responsible for text+source? Surely it depends on other details, such as whether Y gave a good reason for the deletion. Also, this would encourage bulk deletions, since nobody could revert them without checking every single source they include.
• Items 3.2–3.4: The committee should consider the editing record of the filer in the Jewish-Polish domain and compare it to the likely effect on article neutrality if extra restrictions are placed on Polish sources which don't apply to English sources.

Zero^talk 01:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other editors}

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.

Eastern Europe: Clerk notes

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

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

• On the face of it, this seems more like a case request than something for ARCA. If it's too complex for AE, we would need the extended framework of a case to examine the totality of the evidence. I would likely vote to accept this as a case request, but I decline to consider extending 500/30 to an entire topic area in the absence of a case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will echo Joe that I would not consider any broad restriction on non-English sources. That is firmly a content question. If the community wishes to impose such a restriction at WP:AN or WP:RSN in this topic area, they can do so. I do see some potential for a case request based on the allegations here, but such a case request would need to focus on the behavioral problems here: intentionally introducing foreign language sources which do not support the text, POV pushing, etc. by either any established editor or new/IP editors as a group. That's something that would be ripe for arbitration. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm absolutely against placing restrictions on sourcing. That's well into content territory, out of both ArbCom and AE's remit. The other sanctions are possible, but I agree with Rob: we would need a full case to examine this issue properly. – Joe (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely agree with the above. (Well, with one small point - I don't think rejecting all foreign-language sources in a topic area would fly as a community restriction either.) To the extent that this is a POV-pushing or source misrepresentation problem, those are behavior issues that can go through normal dispute resolution channels, and if those are exhausted then it'd be time for a case request. I don't see anything workable in the ARCA format, though - this would need an evidence-gathering process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with my colleagues that we would hear this matter as a fresh case request; I would be unsurprised to find this topic needs a "sequel case".
  The record of inconclusive enforcement requests throws up a couple of issues. First, administrators should probably stop saying that a remedy is too confusing to be enforced. At AE, if you wish to not enforce a remedy or assess a request, best is that you just keep quiet. Speaking up in this way has a chilling effect. Second, I think these 1-Revert Restrictions (1RRs) are doing more harm than good. The received wisdom goes that limiting the quantity of reverts compels a disputant to "choose wisely". Yet 1RR simply encourages the spreading out of reverts over time. The received wisdom also goes that limiting the frequency of reverts stabilises the article for our readers. However, protection may do well enough.
  I am less concerned by the submissions that non-EC users are a destabilising force. The evidence supplied just seems to show a bunch of anonymous users adding content that gets reverted in short order. AGK ■ 20:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Note: Absent objection, it would seem we have provided all the guidance that we can. I move to close this request. AGK ■ 10:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Nyttend at 01:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 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:

• Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Galobtter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Ymblanter
• Galobtter

Statement by Nyttend

This is not some sort of complaint/argument/etc. Just trying to get an authoritative statement on this decision's scope.

Airbnb is a US-based company that acts as a broker for people who have spare rooms in their homes and people who want to rent those rooms. Apparently there was some controversy related to Israel-Palestine and this company, so the article has a section on this issue. Ymblanter recently protected the article under ARBPIA following some disruptive editing to this section. I questioned this action, saying basically "did you accidentally protect the wrong article", and Ymblanter responded basically "I protected it intentionally, because the disruptive editing was related to Israel-Palestine". His response mentions some consultation with Galobtter regarding the duration.

So the question...are this decision's stipulations on page protection meant to apply to all articles that have bits related to Israel-Palestine, or is it only intended for pages to which Israel-Palestine is an integral component? This article is definitely the first — one can understand the company quite well without a tiny Israel-Palestine section sourced only to news reports and an advocacy organization. By the latter, I'm talking about Israeli politicians, places in the West Bank, events in the history of Gaza, etc. The situation here reminds me of the "weather" situation at WP:TBAN — if we had similar sanctions on the topic of weather, I suppose we'd not consider all articles with "climate" sections liable to ARBWEATHER protection.

If we assume either Ymblanter's perspective or mine, there's no room for dispute over whether this is an appropriate protection; if Arbcom meant to include all pages with Israel-Palestine sections, of course this is an appropriate protection, and if you didn't mean to include pages like this, obviously this should be treated like any other victim of disruptive editing rather than an Israel-Palestine issue. So once again, no hard feelings exist yet, and I don't envision them arising in the future; I just want the scope to be clear.

if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me says Ymblanter. I agree — if the committee intends ARBPIA to apply to articles in an Airbnb-type situation, that's fine with me. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, at User talk:Ymblanter#Protection of Airbnb, Ymblanter said I am not sure I can now so easily remove or lower the protection. I do not think we have a mechanism of lowering ARBPIA protections. If an admin levies an ARBPIA sanction and then changes his mind, is there something preventing the admin from self-reverting? If this is indeed the case, and it's specific to ARBPIA (I don't know; I don't do WP:AE), it would be helpful if you implemented a mechanism for lowering ARBPIA protections or allowing other self-reverting. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

The consultation with Galobtter which Nyttend mentions is at my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#Protection of Airbnb. Concerning the issue itself, I indeed interpret the decision such that if an article contains a significant part (in the case of Airbnb, this is a dedicated section) the discretionary sanctions apply. However, I do not hold strong opinions here, if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Without giving my opinion of the motion you mention, if someone compiles a list of articles where the notice must be placed I volunteer, after a reasonable check, place the notice to all these articles (which obviously is going to take time but it is still better than nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Yes, it is time to conduct review of all remedies. We are slowly moving towards professionalizing of AE in general and PI in particular, when one first needs to study for five years and then run an internship in order to be able to act there responsively. This is not really good.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

Statement by Doug Weller

It looks as though this problem is going to continue. It's been discussed for over a week at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Some issues relating to the IP area which I urge everyone to read (and User:Huldra has found a slew of articles that need templating and edit notices given the current sanctions). Towards the bottom of the thread I've tried to outline how I understand ARBPIA sanctions are meant to work. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also virtually the same issue as I raised a few weeks ago which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, isn't it? Doug Weller talk 09:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

This is not related to the issue about parts/whole of the article being under ARBPIA, but it relates to the imbecile motion added March this year. Yes: imbecile!

After that motion, no-one can be sanctioned for 1RR unless an admin has placed an edit notice on the article in question. Since there are thousands of articles, and only a few hundred of them have edit notice, the result is that clear cut violations of the rules goes unpunished; see this example.

So while "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted" are placed under "discretionary sanctions", the 1 RR rule has become unenforceable on most article.

This is a totally untenable situation, I hope that arb.com either:

• 1. Undo their March 2019 motion, or
• 2. Start templating the thousands of articles which need to be templated. (In addition to the ones I have already mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, we can add all the ‎Israel settlements on the West Bank and the Golan Heights, all the kibbutz, etc built on the 48 villages land (they will be found in the "current localities" in the infobox, see eg Suruh.....you would be amazed as to how often that information "disappears"...)

I would prefer that you chose option 1, that's because admins are not the best persons to see what is under ARBPIA, or not. Case in point: Solomon's Pools, where both, say, Icewhiz and I agree that it comes under ARBPIA, but "outside" admins have a difficulty in seeing that. (For those of you who don't know us: Icewhiz and I disagree about just about everything regarding the I/P area...) Huldra (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ymblanter: All articles mentioned in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (and the Israeli localities on their land), all Palestinian localities on the West Bank; listed under Template:Governorates of the Palestinian Authority. I would also say all localities listed in [[Category:Arab localities in Israel]], and all localities in the Golan Heights: Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab–Israeli conflict, and the places mentioned in it and Template:Golan Regional Council. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That old expression: "Don't fix it if it isn't broken" should also be the guiding words for arb.com. This 14 March 2019 change basically changed a structure which was working..sort of..to one with lots of complications. I cannot recall any editor wanting to edit ARBPIA articles, achieving 30/500 status, and not knowing about ARBPIA sanctions. What normally happen, is that they wander into ARBPIA territory before they reach 30/500, they are promptly reverted, most with a note on their talk page. Then, if they are mature enough, they stay away until they have reached 30/500, and then they return.User:SilkTork: yes, the 14 March 2019 added "This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice." I just became aware of that, as I reported an obvious offence, but the editor walked scot free, thanks to this. See here.

User:AGK yes, it is a patchwork, and I would love to see one standard. Especially what "broadly constructed" and what is not. (I think User:BU Rob13 is the only one who understands it!) 1RR is one of the best things there are in the ARBPIA area, alas, the 14 March 2019 change was horrible: it made 1RR unenforceable on most ARBPIA articles. Why have rules if there is absolutely no punishment for breaking them? Huldra (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, User:SilkTork, I hadn't seen the January 2018 note: [30].(I don't follow the "Discretionary sanctions" page), that makes me more understand the 14 March 2019 changes. We have two set of rules for ARBPIA, and I have given up hope of ever understanding those rules....

Also, according to these idiots, I have a IQ of about half a zillion, I don't know if I would trust them, but I tend to understand things that have a logic to them. And as a corollary to that: when I don't understand a thing, it is usually because there is no logic to it. I would love to see some logic to the rules in the IP area...Huldra (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor SilkTork: I think you missed the point when you wrote "If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template." No they can't; only administrators and template editors can add the editnotice that arbcom decided is needed for enforcement. Zero^talk 10:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think that articles that are not broadly about the conflict should not be locked down under ECP, they can be locked down temporarily, they can be IP protected, etc and then when the vandalism passes, it's good to go. We should not have many articles under a patchwork of horrible ARBCOM rulings that are terribly confusing to enforce and understand. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davidbena

I think that it is wise and pertinent that no-one can be sanctioned for 1RR unless an admin has placed an edit notice on the article in question. If the 1RR edit-notice were to apply to all articles in the I/P area, and if ordinary editors could add such notices, who would prevent them from adding these notices to every town and city in Israel (Palestine), irregardless of whether or not the town had been involved in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle? Editors would still find a way to include it, since both sides vie for the control of the same country. This would greatly impede progress and make the simple task of editing much more difficult, just as we found in the article Solomon's Pools, which to my dismay came to be associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although it has absolutely nothing to do with that conflict other than the fact that the pools lie within territory controlled by joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority officials. In my humble opinion, we should avoid making the task of editing bogged-down in red-tape and litigation, whenever possible, and only in those articles where by their nature they spark heated debate or POV views should these 1RR edit warnings be added.Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gatoclass

I have long argued that discretionary sanctions should be applied not only to articles within the topic area, broadly interpreted, but to edits clearly related to the topic area in question, regardless of whether the article topic itself is related. This is because the topic area to which discretionary sanctions apply can be referenced peripherally in almost any article (falafel, anyone?) If somebody is making edits somewhere, anywhere, that can be reasonably construed as pertaining to the topic area, then surely all the usual discretionary sanctions should be applied to those edits regardless of which article they were made in. It seems to me that if this approach were to be adopted, the regular tiresome debates about whether or not a given article belongs in the topic area could be avoided altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should add, with regard to extended-confirmed protection, which is a special case because it works to automatically block anyone who doesn't meet the editing criteria on a given page, that an alternative approach might be to manually enforce extended-confirmed on articles which only peripherally relate to the sanctioned topic area (such as Airbnb in this case), in order to avoid penalizing the vast majority of users who are not making edits that pertain to the sanctioned area. Or alternatively, to use the automated protection only for limited periods, until the related dispute cools down. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2019 (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 3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Sometimes we can bogged down with the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The intention of DS is to prevent disruption; if there is material on Wikipedia which is likely to lead to disruption, then it is appropriate for us to monitor that material. If the DS wording inhibits us from appropriately preventing disruption then we may look to change the wording rather than allow the disruption to take place due to unclear wording. The material in this case, Airbnb#Delisting_of_West_Bank_settlements, does fall under the Palestine-Israel tension. It is currently neutral and factual, and we would want to keep it that way, so applying DS to that material is appropriate. (For me the greater debate is should that information be in the article on Airbnb, or in the article on Israeli settlement. But that's an editorial decision, not an ArbCom one.)

I think I'm comfortable with the template wording as is so we don't need to be fiddling with "page/article/section/material". If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template. If another person doesn't agree, the matter can be taken to AE for discussion and consensus. While the template is in place, any inappropriate edit to any part of the page would be liable for sanction - that would be to prevent, for example in this case, anyone deliberately vandalising Airbnb to reflect badly on the company in retaliation for their actions on the West Bank.

In short, I think we're fine as we are, and nothing needs to be done. Disagreements about siting of templates can be taken to AE. SilkTork (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zero0000. My understanding is that a DS notice goes on the talkpage to let people know that the article comes under DS, and if someone edits that article, and it appears they are not aware that DS applies to the article, they need to be informed on their talkpage before sanctions can be applied against them. I understand that an editnotice can also be added, but does that mean a talkpage notice cannot be placed, and a user cannot be informed? Has there been a rule change which says that we are no longer using talkpage notices, and no longer informing users? I wouldn't have thought an talkpage notice editnotice is sufficient notice alone before sanctioning someone because, lets be honest, most people don't read talkpage notices editnotices. But they do read notices left on their talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huldra, I see what you are saying. Though the rule regarding editnotices has been in place since January 2018: [31]. I think the intention was to ensure that users get warned by having editnotices placed on appropriate articles. But it has created a limbo loop hasn't it? The rule to place editnotices should be separate from the general rule on warning. That is, an editor who meets the general criteria for being warned, should not be able to escape sanction by wiki-lawyering that there was no editnotice in place. It looks like Rob intended or hoped that a bot would be created that allowed editnotices to be created if there was an appropriate talkpage notice in place. I think AGK is right - it would be helpful to conduct a review of the remedies. SilkTork (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huldra - Hah, yes, I was a member of Mensa in the Seventies, yet my mind glazes over when faced with some ARBPIA stuff. But, truth be told, IQ tests only test how good someone is at solving IQ tests, they don't measure the ability to handle arcane Wikipedia bureaucracy created by an ever changing committee. SilkTork (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbitration remedies applying to the Arab–Israeli conflict seem to have grown confusing and patchworked. Is it time to conduct a review of all remedies? I'd like to hear from editors and enforcing administrators who are active in this topic area. Among other questions for a review, we should look at whether 1RR is effective – both in general and under the current rules of notification. AGK ■ 10:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Guantolaka at 09:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

BLP issues on British politics articles 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:

• Guantolaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Philip_Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Philip_Cross

Statement by Guantolaka

I'm posting here to request clarification on the Philip Cross topic ban.

It currently reads: "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed."

On 13 August 2018, Philip Cross was blocked from Wikipedia for one week for violating the topic ban.

There have been edits since then which I believe also violate the topic ban. I'm listing some of these below:

• 27 December 2018: Joan Rodker

"Joan M Rodker (1 May 1915, Kensington, London – 27 December 2010) was an English political activist and television producer."

• 31 December 2018: Geeta Guru-Murthy

Journalist "with regular work for BBC World, BBC News 24, and BBC Breakfast, and by 2005 presenting the news on BBC Radio 4."

• 16 April 2019: Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange

Links showing discussion in the House of Commons, comments from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, the Shadow Home Secretary, and how a change of government in the UK could affect Assange's fate: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]

• 25 April 2019: Political views of Christopher Hitchens

"Christopher Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011) was a British-American author, polemicist, debater and journalist who in his youth took part in demonstrations against the Vietnam War, joined organisations such as the International Socialists while at university and began to identify as a socialist."

Some of these have been posted on the Arbitration Enforcement Request page recently:

• 16 April 2019 - Request concerning Philip Cross

• 16 January 2019 - Request concerning Philip Cross

No action has been taken.

I would like to ask the arbitration committee for clarity here. Are the instances highlighted above outside the scope of "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed"?

Conflict of interest

Additionally, the arbitration decision also contained the following warning:

"Philip Cross is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest."

On 23 November 2018, Philip Cross posted a link to an Oliver Kamm article

The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson. They are not only involved in British politics, but Cross's hostile editing of their pages and derogatory comments about them on Twitter was what led to media interest and the ensuing arbitration case.

@Icewhiz, Doug Weller, Johnuniq: I'm not a Wikipedia editor, and the Philip Cross case was opened because of off-wiki concern about the editing he was doing. That off-wiki concern and attention led to an arbitration case and resulted in a unanimous decision by the arbitratration committe to impose a topic ban and a warning. I don't think that ban has been adhered to, so I'd like to understand why. Either the ban is not what I understand it to be, or it's not being enforced. I hope posting here will clear that up. Guantolaka (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz, I have deliberately not focused on the edits themselves because my understanding of the topic ban is those edits should not have occurred in the first place. Getting into a debate about the edits is what happened during the arbitration case, and resulted in the topic ban. What is the point of a topic ban if to make a successful enforcement request you have to prove that the edit in itself was problematic. Surely that goes for any editor on here whether sanctioned or not. So I have deliberately avoided doing that not because I think all the edits are fine (I don't), but because I want to see the topic ban adhered to. I have also not looked to find more examples of Philip Cross's editing that falls in this topic area, again, not because they don't exist, but because I don't think that should be necessary. I'm happy to post more examples if that would help convince you that these instances are not isolated breaches.

Regarding your point about Galloway. The problem was never solely about Galloway. The narrow focus on Galloway was how it was framed by an administrator at the very beginning. After the community-imposed ban on Galloway, the arbitration case was opened and a review of Philip Cross's editing led to an expansion of the ban to the wider topic area by the arbitration committee. (In my view, that was not wide enough, but I don't want to get a discussion about that now.) Guantolaka (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork, perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't believe the matter has been handled appropriately at AE. As someone who followed the arbitration case closely, it appears to me that the administrators are applying a much narrower reading of the topic ban than what was intended by the arbitration committee. So much so that I think the topic ban becomes nonsensical if the pages I linked above are considered acceptable topics to edit. Of course, it's also possible that this much narrower reading is in fact what was intended. But without comment from the committee, it's hard to know. I'd find it very strange if that is what was intended, considering the conduct and editing brought up during the arbitration case. But if the committee do not see the instances I highlighted as constituting a breach of the ban, it would be good to have that confirmed here. Guantolaka (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Philip_Cross

Statement by Icewhiz

Cross has been under quite a bit of scrutiny by people who do not normally edit Wikipedia - including AE by a sockpuppet and another by the filer here that were closed as not actionable. Cross has been productive as an editor over the past 8 months. To avoid further wasting of community time, ARCA should consider lifting the TBAN entirely or limit it to Galloway, as time served.Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of an off-wiki campaign - it is quite evident from a simple search on twitter and to a lesser extent google. There are also a few pieces on RT (TV network) and other sites of a similar bent. (to avoid possibly running foul of WP:OUTING - I won't link here, however the extent of commenting on this is evident from a simple search). Cross's edits are under intense off-wiki scrutiny - if there were something more actionable than what was brought forward (and dismissed an non-actionable in Jan 2019 AE and April 2019 AE) - it would have been presented. Cross shouldn't have been editing (while being involved in a twitter exchange) Galloway's article (and possibly a few related articles). The current very wide sanction - has off-wiki observers scrutinizing Cross's every edit (13,553 edits (well over 90% of them to mainspace) since September 2018 through 29 April 2019) and coming forth with the very few examples that are possibly extremely broadly construed at the edges of the current fairly wide (for a UK editor) TBAN. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller

Something's pretty fishy here. It's hard not to wonder if there is some off-wiki campaign against Cross. I haven't been following his editing but I do see it from time to time and have never seen anything problematic when we've crossed paths. Perhaps the Committee should at least consider Icewhiz's suggestion. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq

Regardless of the merits of the case, would a passing admin please indef the filer as WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia has enough drama—we don't need off-wiki campaigners. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2019 (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.

BLP issues on British politics articles: Clerk notes

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

BLP issues on British politics articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Inactive on this request: AGK ■ 10:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing there is anything here for the Committee to do with the clarification request, other than to confirm that AE have handled the matter appropriately, and so have already answered the question regarding "Are the instances highlighted above outside the scope of "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed"?". If there is more support for reviewing Philip Cross's topic ban, we could look into that. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• SilkTork is correct, there is nothing for the Committee to do here. I agree with Doug that there certainly seems to be an outside interest in having Philip Cross sanctioned, and I don't particularly appreciate it. If Philip Cross wants to appeal his topic ban (either to reduce the scope or have it lifted) he is well within his rights to do so himself, as the original six-month period has passed, but we should not be making that decision for him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As a matter of procedure, "no action" at AE can absolutely be appealed to ArbCom at ARCA, and we theoretically could disagree with AE and take action. Having said that, nothing linked here appears to be a topic ban violation. Rodker wasn't politically active post-1978. A journalist is not automatically involved with politics just because they occasionally cover it neutrally as part of the news. Assange isn't involved much at all in British politics. Hitchens is mostly a political figure in American politics, not British politics, though he probably comes closest to being placed in the topic area. It is within administrative discretion to consider none of these topic ban violations, and so I see no reason to overturn the result at AE. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---