Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-08/Arbitration report

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost | 2023-05-08

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by JPxG (talk | contribs) at 03:05, 6 January 2024 (Protected "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-08/Arbitration report": old newspaper articles don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite))). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Arbitration report

"World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Bri and Adam Cuerden

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

Continuing from previous Signpost coverage: the case for World War II and the history of Jews in Poland was accepted 13 March. The proposed decision is to be posted a few days after Signpost publication, by 11 May 2023 according to clerks. Content posted in the Analysis phase (now closed) included quotes cross-posted from Wikipediocracy and invocation of WP:BLPCRIME. The proposed decision page, which is meant to include principles, findings of fact, and remedies, is still a mere set of templates.

← Previous "Arbitration report"
Next "Arbitration report" →
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

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

This is shockingly short. Frostly (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is. There shall no doubt be a lot more after the decision's published, since right now it'd have to be a carefully unbiasd summary of a lot of competing viewpoints. Considered whether this should be rolled into one of the other sections, didn't see an obvious target, and, well.... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 06:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a very sensible editorial judgment to wait to cover the ArbCom decision until after it is issued, or at least is proposed. However, the references above to Wikipediocracy and BLPCRIME were probably not worth specific mention here; at least in my perception, these items are of very minor, if any, significance to the case as a whole. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They stood out to me, as the author of several Arbcom reports going back to the 2017 timeframe or thereabouts. It seemed unusual enough to mention. Rather the opposite; I would not have been surprised if off-wiki evidence, especially from that particular source, was subject to removal. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what? they said they weren't getting into off-wiki behaviour, which is what the BLPCRIME stuff is all about. Elinruby (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm mistaken this discussion by one of the parties is an explicit discussion of points made on WO. Whether it's to rebut or to dismiss it from evidence, I don't know, and isn't especially relevant at this point. The point is, it's being discussed in an Arbcom case at all. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explore Wikipedia history by browsing The Signpost archives.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-05-08/Arbitration_report&oldid=1193881959"