Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Analysis/Questions

Questions/Requests from Arbitrators
''This section should be edited only by Arbitrators and Clerks. Any response to questions/requests posed here should be done on the Evidence page or done above as a section under as appropriate.''


 * I haven't looked through the talk page archive or correlated any of it to these reverts. If we're looking at how conduct might impact article and source quality, a deeper dive into interactions like these is probably the direction we should go. If people on the talk page are looking for something to do, I'd appreciate evidence submissions which look deeper into this and other issues raised by Ealdgyth. — Wug·a·po·des 02:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding #Icewhiz socks presented by - are there any instances where FR and Icewhiz (or his socks) disagree? I have no issue with the information as presented currently, but I do not want a false dichotomy of "FR and IW always agree" if there are instances where this is not the case. In other words, right now you have indicated 100% support between these two, which seems somewhat unlikely (though not impossible), and I would rather get a better idea of the real value for that agreement percent. Primefac (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

— Wug·a·po·des 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in hearing more perspectives/evidence about what happened at Jan Żaryn RfCs 1, 2. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * particularly want to hear your thinking (both at the time and now) about your participation in those discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What does the conduct of named parties at noticeboard discussions (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_333#Mass_removal_of_criticisms_from_the_Polish_Institute_of_National_Remembrance) show and tell us? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Want to hear more perspectives/evidence about why RfCs in the topic area would attract a small, but reasonable, number of participants but then fail to be closed. Examples include the Jan Żaryn RfCs, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355, and Talk:Justice_for_Uncompensated_Survivors_Today_Act_of_2017. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Piotrus provided examples of changes to his editing over time. I would be interested in similar evidence from/about other long time editors in this topic area, particularly from and . Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I too am interested in this. It does not necessarily have to be a personal reflection, so if someone notices someone else's behaviour improving/declining/etc over time that would be useful information to have. Primefac (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, what went wrong and right in the editing and talk page discussions of History of the Jews in Poland in Feb - June 2019? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It feels like several of the discussions since the release of the paper have been better at finding consensus and that some of the conduct issues I observe haven't spiraled out of control. One explanation for this is the absence of Icewhiz. I would be curious to hear any evidence and analysis about other reasons this might have been the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * how do you decide when to publicly discuss something with another editor/admin/arb and when to email that editor/admin/arb? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat concerned by the timeline in the Zygmunt Krasiński and The Undivine Comedy section presented by François Robere. The other sections around it can be reasonably explained by watchlists, but the timeline in this section is a bit more suspect., how is it that you came to learn of Mellow Boris and their edits to Zygmunt Krasiński, which you reverted wholesale in Special:Permalink/958695415? Primefac (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate more clarity around potential conflicts of interest and how to assess their impact moving forward. We already have in evidence a few examples of editors modifying the BLP of a subject who has criticized them, publishing articles (both in the press and on-wiki) about BLP subjects who criticize them, and removing sources in which editors are criticized. To me it seems like there is a potential conflict between the the personal or professional interests of some editors and the interests of the encyclopedia. Put another way, I'm puzzling over how to interpret this line from the COI guideline: [Subject mater experts] are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.There's obviously a scholarly dispute underlying this case. To be perfectly clear, the Arbitration Committee will not resolve that scholarly dispute because it is outside our jurisdiction. What we may consider, though, is how to manage potential conflicts of interest when editor-scholars become embroiled with external scholarly disputes, particularly when that "external role[ or] relationship[]" appears to "interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia". There's no hard line here, as the COI guideline says How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense, but I think we need to examine the potential conflict given that a public feud between Grabowski and specific editors has been ongoing for multiple years across multiple venues including on-wiki.So this is all framing for two questions that I would like evidence or analysis on:
 * To what extent have potential conflicts of interest been a problem in this topic area? We've seen a handful of examples, but there is a big difference between editors with a COI adding uncontroversial facts and those writing whole articles on the subject they have a COI regarding. Have potential conflicts of interest actually been an issue?
 * To what extent might potential conflicts of interest be a problem moving forward? For example, it seems like editing of the Jan Grabowski biography stopped after WP:BLPCOI was raised as a concern, and the COIN thread resolved. If there are potential conflicts of interest, do they pose a substantial risk moving forward or have they been resolved through other processes already?
 * thanks for your latest thoughts about the topic area and for noting that you were driven from the topic area. Your displeasure with the topic area and with ArbCom has been clear throughout this case. What's less clear to me is what you'd actually like done. For all of the other parties that have participated in the case to the extent that you have I have some clear idea. Your displeasure is so clear and your the frustration you seem to feel is palpable and so I'd kind of thought you'd just written the whole topic area off. But your last paragraph suggests I have that wrong and you think something can be done, I just don't understand what. For instance, are you suggesting that the source restriction be repealed? If not, what are you suggesting be done with it given your thoughts about the Buidhe AE request? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)