Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:36, 30 December 2021

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Warsaw concentration camp		21 December 2021	5/1/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[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: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Warsaw concentration camp

Initiated by Jehochman ^Talk at 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Jehochman

Collapsed at the user's request. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"On Oct. 4, 2019, Omer Benjakob of Haaretz, Israel's paper of record, published a story about Wikipedia's coverage of Poland and the Holocaust, including what Benjakob called Wikipedia's longest-running hoax, related to content at the article "Warsaw concentration camp": [1]. In this article, Benjakob interviewed User:Icewhiz and User:Piotrus, among others, and wrote, in the newspaper's voice, content that was critical of Icewhiz, Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and others, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. As Benjakob predicted, back in 2019, and again in 2021, Piotrus and Volunteer Marek have removed content about the hoax, and the Haaretz article, from multiple Wikipedia pages." (quoting directly from WP:COIN, wikilink added)

The subsequent COIN discussion ran 20,000 words, becoming heated and impenetrable. One uninvolved editor reacted:

Jesus fucking Christ, reading COIN today was a mistake, because this thread makes me want to shove a pickaxe through my skull.[2]

I found this COIN thread via Wikipedia:Closure requests where it sat, unactioned, for 16 days. It involves many of the same editors as WP:EEML, a 2009 arbitration case. Because I was targeted for harassment by EEML, I chose not to close the discussion.

Upon review, I found credible evidence of a "Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists." (words of Benjakob) Benjakob's view was confirmed by Ealdgyth, who identified persistent editing abuse that is driving off neutral editors. Wikipedia should investigate and self-correct the improper manipulation of The Holocaust in Poland and related articles.

Please listen to Ealdgyth. She's among our very best editors. Please give her the time and space to present full evidence of this long, complex dispute.

This case should be accepted because discretionary sanctions have been in effect in the venue for quite a while, but have failed to resolve the adverse editing conditions that have negatively impacted our articles about The Holocaust in Poland. I request ArbCom review the matter in detail and see what further steps can be taken to improve the situation. (My forward-looking ideas: User_talk:Jehochman#Jehochman's_ideas)

@Barkeep49: the parties should include anyone with frequent editing within the venue of disruption. Several such editors have already given statements. I only listed Icewhiz (removed), Piotrus, and Volunteer Marek because they were the ones named at the top of the COIN thread that caught my attention. Please consider adding these: François Robere, Nihil novi, Buidhe, MyMoloboaccount, GizzyCatBella, Slatersteven, Szmenderowiecki, Levivich, Ermenrich. These editors have made a significant number of recent edits to relevant articles and talk pages. They are likely to know who's causing problems. I am not suggesting that they have engaged in any misconduct. These editors should be invited to give evidence or suggest additional parties.

@Beeblebrox:, I think your comment hits the nail on the head. It's quiet because many of the remaining editors are a mutually supporting group. When a new editor shows up, they are indiscriminately accused of being a sock of a banned user, which is often unsubstantiated. This biting drives away new editors. The following quote from SlimVirgin at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive is especially relevant:

Something for the checkusers to bear in mind. On 28 February [2020], the Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski alleged, in an article in the Polish daily newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, that Polish nationalists are distorting Holocaust history on the English Wikipedia. He named several accounts he believed were responsible for this. It is therefore a real possibility that people in Poland have been trying to counter this (although at least one was doing the opposite).

It would make sense for those accounts to use proxies because of the Poland's controversial "Holocaust law", which makes it a civil offence to damage the "good name" of Poland by implying that it was involved in the Holocaust. If you assume that new accounts using proxies at these articles are all Icewhiz, you risk cutting off people who may be responding to the newspaper article. SarahSV

@Newyorkbrad: glad you remember Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, a case which I filed about an obscure topic. The present request is more important because these articles have greater impact. We have at least two journalists already publishing reports about our incompetence. We should consider misinformation in Wikipedia to be a four-alarm emergency and pay attention to all reliable reports thereof, regardless of whether the source is internal or external. I have requested the external source to mail the committee detailed evidence. Please wait for that before deciding.

@Newyorkbrad: your latest criticism is a Catch 22. But for the artificial word limit, my statement would not be morphing so much; it would just expand. After a request is filed, new information comes out. That's natural. We have an Evidence phase when my evidence will be posted, assuming there are no absurd evidence limits this time.[3] (I don't publish draft expert reports in real life, and I won't do it here either.) For the moment, I have identified a problem, a venue, and some of the key parties. I will not accuse anyone of wrongdoing until the evidence has been collected and analyzed. (1) I would be quite happy if a review by ArbCom revealed that problems identified by the press have largely been resolved and that there are no significant problems with present editors in the area. (2) I would also be quite happy if ArbCom took responsibility for applying sanctions to vested contributors so that individual admins patrolling AE, such as El C, would not be subject to such intense pressure and burnout,[4][5][6] in one case resulting in "The greatest blunder of my Wikipedia career bar none."[7] (3) I think ArbCom remains responsible to investigate why some of our top contributors, such as Ealdgyth still avoid editing articles about The Holocaust in Poland.[8] If we are told that's a problem, we should be curious to find out how the problem evolved and what should be done to fix it. (4) Finally, I think ArbCom needs to consider why three women were pushed away from editing the area: Ealdgyth, Buidhe, and SlimVirgin.[9] We have a known gender gap, and it is strange that most of the women editing this topic have been pushed away. Correlation does not imply causation, but it does suggest investigation.

Merry Christmas to all. I hope that we can work together to improve Wikipedia in the coming year.

Statement by Piotrus

I have no idea why the closure of three mostly stale discussions ended up at ArbCom. I'll just say that Jehochman seems pretty confused about a number of things (including reposting a somewhat biased summary of the discussion in question - no, the Haaretz piece is not critical of Icewhiz, it's very sympathetic to his "plight", and criticizes all of his opponents, including the ArbCom, which had the gall of banning the poor fella...). There is also zero relation to the now 12-years old EEML case; although apparently, Jehochman has bad memories of it (for the record, I don't recall interacting much with Jehochman, and it is the first I hear EEML has targetted them - although it was 12 years ago and EEML included various individuals with various agendas...). Anyway, it would be good for this poisoning the well/WP:ASPERSIONS with references to ancient wiki history to end. As for the closure requests in question, it would be good to see a closure by someone familiar with the issue at hand (i.e. the extent of harassment by Icewhiz out of which the Haaretz piece is his biggest success, in which he duped an otherwise reasonable journalist and newspaper into reprinting his ArbCom-rejected conspiracy theory). #Statement by Alanscottwalker is actually a nice solution and I'd endorse it. On a side note, I do think it is important for the community to clearly say that such calls to arms (cf. quotes from the paper in the collapsed section below) representing extreme WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and also WP:BLP/WP:NPA/WP:AGF violations (although outside the project space) are not welcome on the project, in any shape or form. In other words, WP:HARASSMENT needs to be observed, and it should also prohibit the usage of harassment outside Wikipedia as a source for anything (also per WP:DFTT). I am not sure if this is for ArbCom to say so, but perhaps they need to do so if the community has trouble dealing with such fake news. Also, this can all be resolved without a need for the full case if a proper closure is carried out.

Quote from the paper outlining Icewhiz's motivation to get his story printed there, clearly illustrating issues with BATTLEGROUND

If you ask Icewhiz, it’s because [the Poles on Wikipedia] have built strong allies on Wikipedia that currently make them immune to criticism. Icewhiz, on the other hand, has failed to gain much support on Wikipedia. He says the Poles on Wikipedia benefit from an unholy alliance with editors affiliated with the American left – people who are sensitive to claims of victimhood and reluctant to call out anti-Semitism. It is exactly these kinds of claims that have turned many in the Wikipedia community against Icewhiz. ...Icewhiz says that he brought his story to Haaretz because he has all but lost the battle against Polish revision on Wikipedia. Having a respected newspaper vet his claims and publish the story of the hoax plays a key role in his attempt to defend history. By reporting on Polish revisionism on Wikipedia, the facts being purged by Polish editors are preserved as true by a verifiable source, granting him ammunition for his last offensive in the footnote war.

I really don't think Wikipedia should support "granting [a site-indef-banned real life harasser] ammunition for his last offensive in the footnote war". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't agree with the close by User:Nableezy. In my view, the COIN thread did not endorse either position, mine or Levivich's, and should be closed as no consensus (or perhaps reopened to solicit further input).

My analysis of the COIN thread. My reading of the discussion is a bit different from the closer but I intend to respect it, EOT as far as I am concerned.

My reading and tally of the COIN thread indicate that:

the following editors agreed with Levivich that I and VM have a COI: User:François Robere, User:Starship.paint, User:Pabsoluterince, User:Inf-in MD (banned as a sock since...), User:Softlavender, User:Szmenderowiecki, User:ProcrastinatingReader, User:AlexEng, User:Mlb96, User:Ryk72. Total: 9 (excluding the OP and a banned sock)
the following did not see a COI: User:Firefangledfeathers, User:Hemiauchenia, User:GizzyCatBella, User:Nihil novi, User:Aquillion, User:Only in death, User:Evrik, User:Doug Weller (total: 8, excluding parties, i.e. VM and me)
the following were unsure or I am unsure myself how to interpret their input: User:Masem, User:Darwinek (who called the source in question unreliable but did not opine on the COI), User:Chumchum7 (who I think did likewise), User:Selfstudier (I think they're leaning to no COI but bolded Hum instead of a clear statement...), User:Polska jest Najważniejsza (leaning towards COI I think, calling such edits unethical), User:Zero0000 (who mostly commented on possible copyvio), User:AndyTheGrump (who mostly criticized the very fact of Wikipedia discussing itself...).

Hope I didn't miss anybody. Perhaps Nableezy's interpreted some of the votes differently, but they did not provide a breakdown, or perhaps he found arguments of one side superior to others, but likewise, they did not say so. Or perhaps they find 9:8 a "consensus"... IMHO the COIN discussion in the current form is a clear no consensus, endorsing neither Levivich's POV, nor objecting to it (and endorsing my and VM's POV).

I really don't feel like spending XMAS and NYE dealing with this issue, and frankly, I am not particularly enjoying dealing with this entire ripple of Icewhiz's harassment, on many levels. What can be done? I see the following options:

everyone just moves on with the current close remaining (although per above I believe the close is improper).
the discussion at COIN is reopened in the slight hope it will attract more participation and a more clear consensus will emerge (but note that COIN is an imperfect venue here, as COI is just one side of the coin, HARASSMENT is the other)
ArbCom makes their own call on a number of issues, such as:
- can editors remove (or add...) a source in which they are mentioned when the said source is not used to discuss them on Wikipedia. I will note that several editors at COIN raised concerns that endorsing such a view means that we will open a new way of edging one's opponents out of certain topics, and harassing them, through the use of sympathetic newspieces.
- can a source significantly influenced by and representing a POV of a banned editor, clearly intended to further a BATTLEGROUND environment, be used as a source. Or less extreme - can sources that can be seen as violating WP:HARASSMENT somewhere in their body be used as sources for facts that are not directly related to said harassment? As a reminder, nobody is disputing the fact that there was an error in the KL Warsaw article, the issue is, can we use a source from an otherwise reliable newspaper that also, in that particular piece, is endorsing a POV of an indef-banned harasser, contains harassing statements, calls to arms, and possibly fake news claims, to source something that otherwise is not disputed?
- if the answer to the first is no or a general view that it is not best practice (something which I can understand), but the answer to the second is also no or a general view that we should look for better sources (that don't contain personal attacks or harassment of our volunteers), what is the interaction here? As in, editors are advised to be mindful of COI but can remove harassment despite COI concerns or not? Which policy is superior: COI or HARASSMENT? In other words, can one remove a source that violates harassment in the context of oneself or not? If not, what's the recommended procedure? Post on the article's talk page? AN(I)? Is there a harassment noticeboard to help with such issues?

In case this is not clear to some. As someone who has been a victim of real-life harassment by Icewhiz, I feel that the Haaretz story is part of his harassment campaign (cf. the story itself, quoted above, clearly admitting it is part of his call to arms campaign). Per WP:HARASSMENT, I don't think this story should be linked to anywhere from Wikipedia, as it empowers him and continues his harassment campaign. Preferably, the story should not be removed by me but there should be a community consensus it is not an acceptable source. The problem is that the source, Haaretz, is generally reliable (although the said piece contains a number of factual errors...). And if looked through the prism of COI only, yes, obviously, there are some COI issues here. Where is the right noticeboard to discuss whether the source should be disallowed not because it is unreliable, but because it is part of a harassment campaign? And how to untangle the issue of "you have a COI since the source is critical of you" from "the source is critical of me because it is a part of a real-life harassment of me, and harassment is not allowed on Wikipedia"? Lastly, quoting from WP:OWH: "Off-wiki harassment, including through the use of external links, will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases."

So in summary, I see the possible role of ArbCom here as ruling on best practices when it comes to the intersection of COI and HARASSMENT. If defined in this way, it's clearly a difficult topic, and something for ArbCom to mull over. As for who are the parties - probably everyone who removed or restored the content in question. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors removed their statements, and the OP has left on wiki break. One editor just announced their retirement, citing stress culminating in this very case as a reason. The scope of this case is still unclear. I am not - yet - ready to remove my statement (I am always behind the cool trends...) but I would like the Arbitrators to ASAP remove me as a party, or otherwise clearly state why I am a party (given that the COIN issue is now closed), and if I am a party, please declare who the other parties are (or is it "The State of Wikipedia vs Piotrus and VM"?). As several editors have remarked, this entire proceeding seems "paved with good intentions" and the only winner seems to be Icewhiz, who can now toast a departure of another editor he wanted to see gone for a while. Can we pretty please stop enabling Icewhiz's harassment? PS. Some folks wanted examples of why editors leave this TA. The case study is right here, and I hope lessons will be learned, including on the role of administrators, who should be protecting their fellow editors from harassment, instead of enabling it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Original statement

frustration

There’s absolutely NO WAY I’m wasting ANY time on this stupidity. Volunteer Marek 22:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARGHGHGHGGHHGJHGHGN!!!!! Here is me already wasting my time on this. This is in response to Softlavender - it’s simply not true, it’s 100% false, that any “material that mentions them from a Wikipedia article” was removed by ANYBODY. There was no material mentioning anyone anywhere on Wikipedia to be removed!!!! Between this completely false claim, Softlander falsely accusing users of “perpetuating hoaxes”, Jhochmann somehow claiming he was a “specifically target of EEML” (reality: no one on there gave a fig about him and he was only mentioned in passing) and Levivich running around screaming EEML! EEML! EEML! and dragging out a twelve year old case this is already turning out to be a train wreck.

Goddamit, somebody just do the sensible thing and close any remaining discussions or RfCs (pretty sure some of them have already been closed and this here is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING), stop wasting people’s time, and go on and have the happy holidays. Volunteer Marek 22:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretending it's not about Icewhiz while putting Icewhiz in everywhere

Lol. User:Jehochman is trying to add Icewhiz as a party to this request [10] and insinuates Icewhiz was unjustly banned ("WMF isn't infallible") in a pretty clear indication this is an attempt to relitigate the Icewhiz case, but then Levivich shows up and swears up and down this isn't about Icewhiz or the 12 year old EEML (after repeatedly bringing up EEML every change he gets). Just... shake my head at this. This is 100% an attempt to relitigate Icewhiz case. Some editors have been agitating for that ever since Icewhiz got indef banned. Only difference is whether someone states it out right or whether they... state it outright then deny they just stated it outright. Volunteer Marek 16:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Regarding this: The answer to that question, whether an editor can remove information that is critical of them, should be: No. No. No way. - I can understand the confusion here, because there are several editors here who are doing their best to make this confusing but please allow me to clarify: NOONE is removing ANY information that is critical of them! That is not the issue here. There is no material on Wikipedia anywhere which is "critical of Piotrus" or anything like that to be removed. The text in question isn't about any editors. In fact it's not even about any material added by any of the relevant editors. It's about an article which ALSO mentions some editors. Basically the article is used to source one thing but it happens to mention some other things (which are not - nor should be - in Wikipedia) and it's the other things that make people claim there's COI here. Volunteer Marek 16:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OMFP!

@Jehochman: Icewhiz denies that they ever harassed anyone, and claims that Piotrus and friends colluded in false complaints, which were accepted uncritically by WMF, without giving Icewhiz a chance to respond.[private email] My experience with WMF is that they are not infallible. OH. MY. FUCKING.PANTIES! The guy was running a publicly accessible twitter account where he doxxed, harassed and encouraged others to harass something like a dozen different editors (not just myself and Piotrus), including a couple admins and I think one arbitrator! The motherfucker posted personal detailed info about my children and contact numbers, which resulted in death and rape threats. He posted and contacted employers of several Wikipedia editors in an effort to get them fired! All this was publicly available and lots of people saw it. ArbCom did ask him, publicly, on Commons, if the account was his. He said something like "well, that MAY not be me". The connection between the twitter account and statements and sources he made on Wiki was 100% clear. There was no need for anyone to "collude" on any evidence. In fact, at first he didn't even deny it was him (he wanted his victims to know he was getting his revenge!) doing a lot of "maybe it is, maybe it's not" crap. It wasn't until the global ban and the realization that oh shit this is for real that he started denying it was him. He had plenty of opportunities to respond. It's just that it seems his response... only confirmed what everyone already knew.

And oh yeah, he's been socking ever since, with these sock accounts doing the same exact crap [11]. Hell, one of his socks almost sneaked through RfA just a few months ago! But sure... "WMF is not infallible". (Bang head against table)

Seriously, the fact that some people are STILL defending this guy, that some of his editor friends are STILL trying to relitigate his case, and the fact that ArbCom is even considering doing another case which will only lead to MORE harassment, more real life damage and only encourages this kind of sociopathic behavior (I'm sure he's loving this right here right now) just exemplifies how messed up this website is. All this is just fucking shameful. Volunteer Marek 16:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and all these people who are running around here saying "this isn't about Icewhiz, it's about content" ... WHAT content? There's no content-related diffs anywhere here (almost). It's all about the discussions about COI. The only "content" related controversy here is about a footnote in the Warsaw Concentration camp article: this. That's it. This is the only issue here that can be thought of as "content", removal of a footnote (and btw, that's a good edit, not just because it removes a source based on Icewhiz's ravings, but also because the text misrepresents even that source!). And that's not by anyone with any "COI". All of this is just an excuse to try and relitigate the Icewhiz case (the people pushing for it know damn well that even if ArbCom says "we will look only at this narrow issue" they will get an opportunity to try and throw anything they want into it and relitigate the whole freakin' case). Volunteer Marek 17:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weird AE stats stuff

@Jehochman: @Primefac: - Jehochman, you are still falsely pretending that my “appearances” in WP:AE search 1) all have to do with Eastern Europe (completely false, over 12 years I’ve edited numerous controversial and difficult topics from Race and Intelligence, to American Politics) and 2) are some kind of evidence of my wrong doing or are instances of reports against me. This too is completely false. Most of these are comments made by me on other user’s reports in various topic areas. The number of times someone appears in WP:AE is completely meaningless and you need to stop acting like that itself is sanctionable. For example, User:Nableezy appears in about 125 AE searches (more than me) and this is all due to the fact they edit in a very controversial area, not due to any actual wrong doing on Nableezy’s part. You really need to stop with these underhanded WP:ASPERSIONS and insinuations. Volunteer Marek 23:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s another way to see how useless and misleading Jehochman’s “statistics” are. I have been here since May 2005. Or 199 months. Accepting J’s assertion that I’ve been mentioned at AE 110 times that’s about .55 per month or 6.6 per year. Ok. Now take User:Levivich. Ostensibly they’ve been here since November 2018, or about 36 months. How many times do they show up on AE? Also 36 times, or about once per month. So Levivich is mentioned at AE at about twice the rate that I am. Holy helium hijinks that must mean that he’s causing twice the trouble than I am!!!!!! Why isn’t Jehochman screaming bloody murder about how disruptive Levivich must be and how this “suggests Levivich’s persistent involvement in festering disputes”? Volunteer Marek 23:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and another sock just blocked

Just a quick note that I filed an SPI on User Polska jest Najważniejsza, who’s commenting here. It’s a very obvious sock of indef banned User Miacek, one of Icewhiz’s buddies from Reddit and Wikipediocracy. Those of you who are wondering if an accepted case will “become a circus” (User:Barkeep49) there’s your answer - it’s already becoming a circus! The minute the case is accepted, narrow scope or whatever, all the socks are gonna crawl out of woodwork. Every editor with a grudge will jump in. You’ll be lied to, hit with walls of text, showered with irrelevant diffs, told that the very existence of Wikipedia is at stake. And that will be just the on wiki part. Off wiki it’s very likely such a case will encourage Icewhiz and friends to ramp up the harassment (hell, PjN is already hinting/threatening it with their “ Quite soon, some say” quixotic quip) and that means that I personally are going to have to deal with that crap all over again.

Thing is, I don’t know if this has been pointed out, but the topic area has actually been quiet for the past few months, aside from this whole COIN kertuffle (which isn’t even content related). An occasional sock pops up, causes some trouble then gets banned. There might be some discussion off in some corner but generally there really hasn’t been much controversy (again, except for this COI issue and Jehochman going around to people’s talk pagesand trying to whip up an angry mob). 500/30 is working. DS is mostly working. Note that no one has actually pointed out even a single problematic content issue. So, given that this WILL be a circus, and given that it’s very likely people like me will have to deal with intense harassment… what exactly is the upside of accepting the case? Volunteer Marek 06:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robby.is.on, I'm sorry but none of these people have been "driven away". FR is still here and they're up to their ears in the controversy (as evidenced that some people have proposed they be added as party here). AFAIK no one's ever reverted or disagreed with anything Ealdgyth ever did in this topic area - they simply have NEVER edited heavily in EE. And their participation is more than welcome!!! Trying to use a deceased Wikipedian as an argument is frankly ghoulish and something you should be ashamed of doing. I'm not going to comment on Buidhe because Buidhe hasn't commented here so bringing them up is ALSO unfair to them. But you know what? There are most certainly constant ongoing efforts being made to "drive editors away". What do you think this right here is??? We have a RfAA with ZERO diffs of any wrongdoing - just a vague "oh these eastern europeans, they always trouble!" nonsense. We have numerous spurious AE reports dismissed as "no action" or boomeranged on OP filed against me again and again (and then other users show up and try to pretend that the existence of these spurious reports is evidence itself!) We have a couple users more or less blatantly expressing the borderline racist opinion that "Polish users shouldn't edit Polish topics". There are comments on Wikipediocracy and Reddit which blatantly state, more or less "we need to drive Volunteer Marek away from Wikipedia" (similar, but less often for Piotrus). Yes. There have been numerous and constant efforts made to drive me, or Piotrus, or other Polish users that Icewhiz or one of his friends doesn't like from the topic area. What do you think the awful harassment was about if not trying to scare editors away from this topic??? You think that because someone got disagreed with somewhere that "drove them away"? Really? You want to know what someone trying to "drive you away" looks like? It's death threats and trying to get you fired and threatening to hurt your kids. I'm sorry but your statement is so callous and wrong headed that it's actually an insult to all of us that have actually experience REAL HARM, not just "oh I didn't get my way in a content dispute on Wikipedia so I'll never edit this topic again". Gimme a break. Volunteer Marek 14:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:François Robere Yeah but that's the thing - the topic area has actually been quiet for past six months+ or so. I haven't been doing much editing in it either - also only if I'm pinged or if an obvious sock shows up and starts causing trouble. 500/30 is working and there aren't any current content disputes. That's why the whole timing of this thing is quite strange (not to say sketchy) - it very much looks like an effort to throw gasoline on a fire that's been going out. Volunteer Marek 15:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beeblebrox - I don’t know if the TA is “unpleasant” to outsiders. To the extent that is true it surely has to do with the continuous, unending influx of socks (from Icewhiz and friends - one *just* got blocked [12]) into this TA. The fact that the main tactic of all of these is to start fights in the hope that those who deal with them will “catch” a sanction does indeed make for a bad editing environment. But how exactly would an ArbCom case help with that? You can’t arbitrate on throw away sock accounts.

As to some of the users who’ve show up and claimed they or someone they know (someone’s barber’s neighbor’s dog co-op cousin’s friend apparently) have been “driven away” … well, with all due respect, as someone who has been subject to actual real life harassment whose purpose was to scare me off and drive me away, my sympathy is in limited supply. Nobody harassed these folks, nobody filed spurious reports against them, nobody created Joe-job accounts to smear them, nobody contacted their employers. The worst that may have happened to them is that… someone disagreed with them at some point! Oh no. And frankly, some of these self proclaimed Ivebeendrivenaway folks showing up here have NEVER actually edited this TA in first place. Ermenrich is a case in point. Over 3+ years, Ermenrich has made a total of… 7 edits to articles in this TA. 6 of them on the single Warsaw Concentration Camp article. Seven. In 3 years+. And none of these 7 involved controversy with either me or Piotrus. You can’t have been “driven away” if you weren’t here in first place, you can’t “return” to a topic area if you were never there. This is all just blowing smoke. Volunteer Marek 22:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but User:Jehochman’s claims have now gone wayyyy past “reasonable concerns” to outright false accusations, and WP:ASPERSIONS. At same time not a single diff or ANY evidence of wrong doing has been presented. It’s all this Trump-like “everybody’s talking about it” nonsense, obviously intended to whip up a mob, combined with these vague thinly disguised threats about “the media”. His latest claim that he shouldn’t have to provide any evidence until the case is opened is an attempt to stand everything on its head. “If you accept the case I’ll look for ways to manufacture the evidence”. No. You need to show that there is something there to begin with. Diffs please. I know administrators can be “untouchable”, but at this point I really think the committee should at very least admonish Jehochman. If any non-admin user made the kind of accusations that he has without providing diffs, they’d ALREADY be blocked. Volunteer Marek 15:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Szmenderowecki gets it inadvertently right - unless someone thinks that the way that WP:COIN discussions were closed (and while I disagree with Nableezy’s closure, I respect it) needs to be changed, this request is done. Jehochman or whoever can file a new request with different scope, with actual evidence and diffs to back up his WP:ASPERSIONS. Volunteer Marek 16:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did somebody seriously say awhile back “nah, this won’t turn into a circus”. Welp, I’m case there is any doubt here you go [13] [14]. We have an admin accusing a long standing editor of “supporting violence against Jews” … in a request that has nothing to do with Israel-Palestine topics. Hey, maybe the scope of the proposed case should be included to cover EVERY controversial area on Wikipedia! You know, because some stale COIN discussion wasn’t closed for a couple weeks. Makes perfect sense.

Jehochman needs to be at the very least admonished here and told to cut this crap out. This is an admin becoming disruptive and going rogue. Volunteer Marek 17:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:El_C re: comments on WPO [15] A teacher requires that his students don’t use “naughty words” in his classroom. He then learns that one of his pupils used one of those “naughty words” at home with his parents (and parents were cool with that). The teacher then goes running to the school principal “Mr. Principal! Mr. Principal! Marek uses naughty words at home!” Volunteer Marek 16:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Levivich, relying on another indef banned [16] user posting on Wikipediocracy, mentions Piotrus’ article in Gazeta Wyborcza, then says Look at the 2021 history of Jan Grabowski (…) and tell me you don't see WP:BLP/WP:COI-violating tag-team edit warring. So again. No diffs. Just WP:ASPERSIONS and a general vague link to the article’s history. Ok. Fine. Let’s look at “2021 history of Jan Grabowski” and the edits by Piotrus. There’s … THREE of them. OH MY GOD THREE EDITS OF BLP AND EDIT WARRING! Surely! Piotrus must be immediately banned!

Except…

Which of these edits actually constitute “WP:BLP/WP:COI-violating tag-team edit warring”?

This one? It adds “ published by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum”. Oh yeah, that’s a super obvious BLP vio! Not. Was it a revert? Mmm, no. Was it reverted? No. So how in waffly house is that “edit warring”??? Nevermind “tag teaming”??.?
Oh, maybe it’s this one? It’s a… minor edit which “removes unnecessary section heading”. Surely a “COI” violation. Yeah right. Was it a revert? No. Was it reverted? No. So how in ihiphopitty is it “edit warring”??? Nevermind “tag teaming”.
That leaves this one. Hey, at least that one isn’t just a minor edit that Levivich is falsely pretending constitutes “BLP vio”. So is it a BLP vio? Of course not. Is it reverting or edit warring? No. Is it tag teaming with anyone? No.

Levivich’s claims here are so completely false that one wonders if he even looked at the edits he’s referring to before relying on an indefinitely banned user’s word. Btw, several people have repeatedly called out that banned user on WPO for lying and misrepresenting other editors’s edits. They’re actually indef banned for a reason. Not sure why Levivich would want to quote another banned user here, especially in the light of the already present accusations regarding Levivich and another banned user, Icewhiz.

Since we’re all quoting WPO now, here’s another comment from there, made about Icewhiz and NoCal. Kind of relevant here I think:

One problem with people like Icewhiz (and Nocal + Collier etc, etc) is that they say diffs/evidence shows something, but then you actually have to look at each and every diff/evidence to check that. And far to often it is all a bluff/lie; you simply cannot believe a word they say; everything needs to be checked.

Volunteer Marek 08:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Original statement

Ask three of the retiring arbitrators (if they are uninvolved) to close each of those discussions listed in the case request. And go from there, if those closes do not or find they can not resolve it. (As for behavior, from the present case request, it does not look like behavioral issues, assuming there are behavioral issues, have been dispute resolutioned at lower levels by admin intervention, or at places like ANI/AN, which should normally be tried before this committee accepts.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration would not close the discussions or decide content, individual administrators/users would close based on the discussions, and then any arbitrating, if more were needed, could be done by the remaining arbitrators (and to sweeten the deal, we'd give the closers a year end bonus, twice their present salary). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WTW, it's actually an ask that has already been made of them, indeed it's an ask that is outstanding to all those who can close, but we are here in this forum, and thus they may heed the call -- as grandma says, it does not hurt to ask. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, I don't get that idea, if it is AE, send the parties to AE, and preserve the committee for, as always, last. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Barkeep, if AE fails, only then it is time to decide AE failed, this committee is not just last because that's the way it is, it is last because of its unique power, which should not be exercised until the failure of the other processes. AE can't fail, if not tried, first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People came to my talk page, and I'll just quote part of the only comment, I have there: "What issue has AE not been able to deal with -- if the issue is whether someone should be banned from the project or a topic, put in your filing to Arbcom, who should be banned, why, diffs, and what steps have been taken to secure the ban prior to Arbcom." Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Paul Siebert (please give his comment several reads) points to the futility (and indeed "circus") some are inviting. You can ban and that's about it, but that's rather beside the point, and would be better, less circus-like (you have already been told this case is going to be a chapter in someone's book!) in regular order (AE). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

As far as I understand, the core thesis of Jehochman's request can be summarised by this:

"Wikipedia should investigate and self-correct the improper manipulation of The Holocaust in Poland and related articles."

I looked at some evidences presented by Ealdgyth, especially at the misinterpretation of one source (Michael Ellman), and I agree that that is a serious misinterpretation, and, as I know from my own experience, that is not a single isolated example. Furthermore, after the last "Holocaust in Poland" case was closed, one user, who is an Associate professor of history of the Holocaust related topics in one US university, contacted me and asked for my comments on this case. From that conversation, I got an impression that scholarly community is dissatisfied with the way the Holocaust related topics are covered in some English Wikipedia articles. Maybe, it makes sense to ask that user to comment here, because her expertise may be instrumental.

However, I see one fundamental problem with the Jehochman's request: in reality, English Wikipedia has no tools for resolving the problems of that kind. Indeed, ArbCom cannot make decision about the article's content, but the analysis of this case, where content and conduct issues are tightly intertwined, requires careful reading and analysis of sources to understand if each concrete source was misinterpreted, who concretely did that, what interpretation is correct, and how much weight is supposed to be given to it. Indeed, to reveal systematic POV-pushing and source misinterpretation, one has to clearly understand what is a majority view on that subject, and how concretely each of those sources must be interpreted.

Thus, to analyze the above mentioned Ealdgyth's claim that one user misinterpreted the views of one scholar, ArbCom must go into such details as the UNO definition of the term "genocide" and the definition that was later advocated by Raphael Lemkin, and how many authors supports the UN definition, and how many of them prefere later amendments and other interpretations, and so on, and so forth. What is even worse, we can speak about any conduct issues only after we accumulate information about many violations of that kind, because each single misinterpretation should be (per AGF) seen as a good faith mistake. Who will do that analysis? I doubt ArbCom members have needed expertise and, more importantly, that they have an obligation to invest so much time into that.

Therefore, only community itself can do such analysis. However, I don't see any reasonable mechanism that would allow us to do that. The users who are interested in that job and are familiar with this topic are ... the very same "Polish" and "Jewish" users!!(I imply no ethnicity by "Polish" or "Jewish", these terms reflect more the topic that is the focus of their interest) Clearly, other users are much less interested in that analysis, and they will hardly be ready to invest significant time in that, so any attempt to "investigate and fix" will lead just to another round of a conflict. Therefore, I agree with Robert McClenon that English Wikipedia have no adequate tool to resolve this issue, despite the fact that Jehochman is absolutely right, and this issue is real and serious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman:~~@Ealdgyth:~~ you provided a list of users who were active in this area, you imply no misconduct, but it seems you imply that some of these (or some other) users may engage in some disruption (otherwise this request would be snseless). How do you expect a disruption to be identified? Clearly, this disruption is not just an ordinary incivility; most likely, it is POV-pushing and/or source misinterpretation. To figure out who was engaged in disruptive behaviour, ArbCom has to come to an agreement what text should be considered neutral, and what interpretation of sources is correct, otherwise it would be impossible to decide whose edits were disruptive, and who was engaged in posting misinformation or pushing some POV.

For example, I looked at your link (the AfD), but I could not understand which party ("keepers" or "deleters") may be guilty of disruption. To understand that, we need to dig into sources (my first impression is that the article is poorly sourced, most sources are Polish and of questionable quality, I was unable to find any reasonable English source so far). Clearly, if you pointed our attention at this AfD you meant that one party may be engaged in some disruption, but what is that disruption? To answer this question, one need to spend several hours and analyse at least all sources this article cites and try to find other sources. How do you expect that can be done and who will be doing that? I am asking because if this case will be accepted, that may open a new paradigm in resolving other conflicts of that kind.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: never mind, I typed a wrong name. Sorry.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider's comment GoodDay

Just gotta ask. Concerning the banned editor-in-question. How is he still able to (as I've read) endanger directly or indirectly people, off the project? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no evidence of sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry or any non-NPoV editing in the articles-in-question, in the last two years? Then yes, perhaps the Arbcom request should be declined. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biruitorul

As a card-carrying EEML member, can I just say that irrelevantly exhuming our doughty cabal twelve years later is downright absurd at this point? If one wants to criticize Piotrus’ actions — although I see nothing blameworthy, only a sincere attempt to defend the project from the slanders of a disgruntled banned editor — by all means do so, but bringing up something that happened a few months into the Obama administration isn’t the winning argument one may imagine it to be. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Original statement

Not worth reading; read #Statement by Ealdgyth below instead.

Volunteer Marek and Piotrus were parties to WP:EEML; the reason it's relevant today is that they're still doing the same thing they were doing twelve years ago, and that's what the Haaretz article is about, specifically discussing EEML, Piotrus, and Marek. In the COIN thread are diffs of coordinated editing (reinstating each other's reverted edits, for example) and the COIN thread itself (and the other three) also show coordinated bludgeoning. EEML editors have been working together to erase this Haaretz article from everywhere it appeared in Wikipedia (even tho the content has been stable for two years). Marek had been tbanned and this new activity in 2021 comes right on the heels of him being un-tbanned (by arbcom). Piotrus was also tbanned for 3 months last year for canvassing. This stuff has been going on for like seventeen years in total (years before the EEML case), and it's still happening today. If this is accepted as a case, it might even be called EEML 2 (with a similar scope, and perhaps some additional parties should be added, including some who were parties to EEML). Personally I think it's obvious enough to not even need a full case, but then I remain in perpetual disbelief that anyone from EEML was ever allowed to edit again, at all. Levivich 17:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just one article, it's at least three articles (Warsaw concentration camp, Reliability of Wikipedia, and List of Wikipedia controversies) plus WP:List of Wikipedia hoaxes), plus the COIN thread.

And it's only a footnote in the first article, and I'm the one who moved it to a footnote this past summer IIRC as a compromise to stop an edit war. The suggestion that this is about a footnote is a bit frustrating; this is about editors removing all instances of an article that is critical of them from the encyclopedia. It's more than a footnote, and everyone who has participated in these disputes knows that.

If I want to accuse someone of off-wiki coordination, I will use the words "off-wiki" prior to "coordination". If I omit "off-wiki", I mean on-wiki coordination. Details, links, diffs, are in the COIN thread. The other potential parties would be parties bludgeoning or being uncivil in the linked threads.

I don't think a case is required either, I like the idea of someone closing those threads though, and if there are conduct issues in those threads, they can be dealt with. Levivich 03:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: re: what I'm seeing here is not a fresh upset, but a request to go back over old grounds Please take another look at the links in the OP. This is not about "old grounds" or anything happening 2 years or 12 years ago: the OP has links to stuff that is happening in 2021 (and the COIN thread has more links to stuff happening in 2021). I'm not saying Arbcom should take the case or not take the case or do anything else (frankly, I don't know, this is fast moving and I feel that other editors are handling this better than I could--my thanks to J and Nabs... the close of the COIN might be the resolution of this entire dispute, who knows), but this is definitely "fresh upset." After Icewhiz was banned in 2019, these content issues were quiet for two years, until summer 2021, as the diffs in the COIN thread show. If you don't think Arbcom should do anything here, I respect that, but please don't characterize this as relitigating because it is very much not that: nobody, absolutely nobody, is asking Arbcom to revisit any prior decision (about Icewhiz, or EEML, or anything else).

One of the reasons I don't file requests at Arbcom or at AE is because this is the sort of response I expect: one where the reviewing admins opine without actually reviewing diffs, and say things like it's "a request to go back over old grounds", when literally nothing in the OP is asking anyone to go back over any old grounds. Levivich 15:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WTT, I appreciate the clarification. Levivich 01:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the wake of the latest Icewhiz scare there was a large-scale campaign to remove any mention of the fact that the Warsaw Concentration Camp page had hosted a hoax... actually it started in August, before the latest Icewhiz scare. See diffs in COIN. Levivich 16:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting together a "diff history" of edits to Warsaw concentration camp relating to the "hoax" (through 2021) but I probably won't be done with it until after the holiday, and I plan to post it in my userspace regardless of what happens with this case request. In the meantime, there's enough conduct sanctionable under WP:NPA and WP:BLP on this page and on pages linked-to on this page to keep anyone who cares to enforce those policies busy. Levivich 17:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Grabowski is one of the historians quoted in the Haaretz article. [17] is an article (in Polish) by Grabowski, in which he writes "This is how the technique of falsifying Polish history in Wikipedia works." (Tak działa technika fałszowania polskiej historii w Wikipedii.) [18] is a response article by User:Piotrus, in which he writes "There is no conspiracy of Polish nationalists falsifying history in Wikipedia, no matter how attractive such a thesis may sound." (Nie istnieje żaden spisek polskich nacjonalistów fałszujących historię w Wikipedii, niezależnie od tego, jak atrakcyjnie taka teza może brzmieć.) Look at the 2021 history of Jan Grabowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and tell me you don't see WP:BLP/WP:COI-violating tag-team edit warring, just like what was pointed out in the COIN thread, by the same editors (all of whom have been previously tbanned, some multiple times). Note the entire history of that article going back to 2018: lots of familiar names. Note it was discussed at WP:APL. Still going on in 2021. (h/t Sashi via WO) Levivich 06:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

This is, largely, about a footnote. A footnote. The other places are an internal Wikipedia page and two sentences at Reliability of Wikipedia, all of which has (somehow) now reached ArbCom. ArbCom should reject this, inclusion or exclusion at each of those places should be resolved by an RFC, and if anyone really really wants to add this source at multiple additional places it could possibly also be discussed in a broader RFC at RSN or NPOVN, depending on whether you want to argue about whether the source is basically reliable or whether its use is due / undue. We have systems for resolving such trivial and insignificant content disputes before they reach ArbCom; use them. As far as the COIN issue any administrator is free to close it with action, and if no one is willing to do so, that is likely an indicator that there's insufficient consensus to act on it.

Also, if ArbCom does decide despite that that they must accept this, it would be inappropriate to only examine Volunteer Marek and Piotrus' behavior (Jehochman is, AFAIK, largely uninvolved) given how unfortunately long and involved the dispute has become. At the very least, anyone who has spent serious amounts of time adding / restoring the disputed text or opening / pursuing sanctions should also have their behavior examined; if ArbCom decides it involvement is needed to resolve the underlying dispute, it must examine all sides in it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nihil novi

For apposite reasons cited by Alanscottwalker, GoodDay, Biruitorul, and Aquillion, I believe that arbitration is not the proper means for adjudicating Jehochman's meritless allegations. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May an editor remove, from an article, a statement that he believes to be incorrectly complimentary to him? Conversely, may he not remove a statement that is libelous to him as a living person? Nihil novi (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I am not a party to any of the articles or talkpages or subjects involved in this dispute. I did !vote and opine in the COIN thread about the user-behavior issue at hand.

It seems a no-brainer than editors cannot remove material that mentions them from a Wikipedia article. If it takes ArbCom to settle that, then so be it. Perhaps an entire case is not necessary; a simple tally ruling could suffice. Softlavender (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

already handled via closure of COIN thread

Alternative solution: The problem with the various RFCs and polls is that they were either limited to the Warsaw concentration camp article and/or were not wide enough in scope or location (too many partisan respondents and not enough uninvolved, non-partisan, site-wide participation; scope was too narrowly focused on one[?] wiki article and one content item).

I propose an RFC at WP:Centralized discussion that reads:

Should editors remove content that mentions them from Wikipedia articles?

It's a simple yes or no poll, and can run the standard RFC length. An arbitrator or the committee (or any completely uninvolved [group of] longstanding, neutral, respected admin[s]) can close it.

--Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New comment: Since this whole current incident came to light I think there are now (post COIN-thread closure) two main problems:

(1) The apparent Icewhiz sockpuppets (which I see mentioned frequently but don't have any direct evidence of since I do not edit in this topic area). I don't know how ArbCom could help in this area, but if they think they should then they can accept the case.

(2) The behavior of pro-Polish editors who are in the opposite camp. Since this whole current incident came to light I have seen an extraordinary amount of extraordinarily bad behavior from at least one or two of these editors, which seems to indicate to me that they should possibly be topic-banned from the area.

Whether one or both of those topics should be examined in-depth by ArbCom at this point is a matter of opinion. Perhaps leaving the subject(s) in abeyance right now and waiting to see if matters improve or not is in order. If left in abeyance and matters do not improve, then a case can be opened down the line with sufficient evidence. Perhaps merely putting everyone on notice will cause the situation to improve, as in "a word to the wise is sufficient", but if it proves insufficient, then the issue(s) will probably end up here again. Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

Original statement

After reading all 4 threads provided by Jehochman, this conflict appears to be indeed about the article "Warsaw concentration camp", but more importantly, about the banned User:Icewhiz. This is the case when the banned contributor has created sock puppets and disrupts Wikipedia by publishing in Haaretz (and on off-wiki forums) about contributors with whom he had a grudge.

Furthermore, I believe the removal of the text in question (one referenced to Haaretz) could be legitimate for a number of reasons, such as content created not without help of the banned user to attack WP and specific contributors. If there was anything problematic, that can be reported to WP:AE, not here. My very best wishes (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A wider case? Actually, I can not name a single contributor who recently edited in this subject area and behaved so badly to be included to such case. If the issue was WP:COI, do one needs a full case for that? My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to last comment by Jehochman [19]. The misinformation/hoax/error was fixed on the page several years ago, and no one suggested to re-include it back. Was any new, more recent misinformation included to any pages by any of ~10 participants mentioned by Jehochman? I do not see any diffs about that. So why the case? My very best wishes (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

Irrelevant because OP no longer focuses on EEML, Levivich clarified his remarks + a statement that I no longer think is representative of my opinion

First and foremost, the EEML invocation here is really irrelevant. Even though there is some rather concerning behaviour, I think it might fall short of ArbCom intervention - I've seen worse; probably it should be dealt with at AN/ANI level first. @Levivich: your statement seems to imply some off-wiki coordination between users wishing to remove the Haaretz article. While the amount of energy some of them have spent on removing it is absolutely mind-boggling (particularly when speaking of a footnote), you should present some evidence of this behaviour before anyone blocks or sanctions anyone. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion is right that the question is only about a footnote, so we might be making a mountain out of a molehill, and indeed I believe that in a way, that is the case because the information is not cited to Icewhiz's opinion but is simply a factual statement that no one objects to. However, there are important questions that have been triggered while discussing this source, which ArbCom might be willing to consider:

Whether articles published in RS (according to WP:RSP) may be considered unreliable if one of the sources for the article is a banned editor, and if so, whether that applies to the whole article or we may separate the reliable part (factual story) and the tainting factor (Icewhiz), and whether that changes with the likelihood (assessed independently) the article was used as a soapbox for off-wiki harassment, as Piotrus and VM say.
Whether a user has a COI if they are mentioned in a 3rd-party article published in an RS.
Adopt a uniform definition of the word "hoax" for the purposes of articlespace and Wikipedia space, i.e. whether a user's intent to deceive is needed or it is enough to show that by all likelihood the original information (Trzcińska's book, in this case) was initially published as a hoax (I'd say yes).

I believe ArbCom may take the second question (it is not the content one) as the discussions are dispersed among different threads, and for the above questions, the community could not find an acceptable solution to the problem. The three-admin solution should work for the rest, but then it should be a single resolution concerning all the RfCs and discussions, and this resolution should answer the above questions (all of them if ArbCom declines to take the case and the first and the third ones if ArbCom decides to resolve the COI issue). I would rather that ArbCom considered the case, particularly in light of prior interactions with the now-banned user (some of which ended up on ArbCom as well) and the possible sockpuppet influence in the threads that some users here allege. Any potential appeal to the closure, made by Nableezy and Isabelle Belato, should be made here because the case is complicated. I have no opinion on whether ArbCom should accept appeals against the closures.

Answering My very best wishes, I don't believe AE is the proper venue because the COI rules proved not as clear-cut as it could seem, and if we can't agree on the interpretation of the rules, we don't know what to enforce in the first place; besides, I don't see having COI it as a violation of something (as an AE report would suggest); finally, this might be a situation where simple admin attention might not be enough because this is not the first case and is among the most sophisticated we've had.

Reply to GCB's question - collapsed at the very top

@GizzyCatBella: The same users participate in all four discussions, Piotrus, VM or you revert its addition or challenge the inclusion of the source (this earned Volunteer Marek a 3RR report, which was not really acted upon, among other things), Levivich (not the best behaviour, either), was the most active on the other side. Answering your question, though: I don't know about others, but Dreamcatcher25 (sadly absent from the discussion) and I have spent much more time expanding and improving the articles, in Polish and English, respectively, than on bickering in the talk pages, and this is what matters in an encyclopedia we are supposed to build.

On a side note, there is a point to be made about some sort of irrational obsession with Icewhiz (or with non-500/30 user participation, suggesting the non-EC must be either clueless or socks, or both). Yes, Icewhiz isn't good, yes, socking isn't good either. But folks here tell us not to feed the troll but then stress that they are a globally banned editor several times and invoke them whenever the occasion comes. I mean, had I been an evil rubble-rouser, I would be delighted by such behaviour - it wastes legitimate editors' time, it makes butthurt spread exponentially, and affords me recognition as the arch-nemesis of Wikipedia - just as planned. (PS. I'll add that prosecuting sockpuppets by itself is not a problem, but PjN was accused of it on 26/11 but the case was only filed on 24/12. Why the delay? Same question for (Mellow Boris). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, the first quote comes from an edit posted at midnight on that day. There is no edit in the talk page with the 2:00, 22 Nov 2021 timestamp. Please change the talk page history link to the diff. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad I understand this was due to remarks of some arbs that they would take up the behavioural case (APL 2) but won't touch the issues originally raised because of the events that happened between filing the case and arbs' comments. The problem is, most of the earlier statements focused on the question that arbs say they don't want to consider, and folks have already used up their limits. If you want a purely behavioural investigation (as most arbs seem to agree to), we will have to make new statements that present evidence. In my case, for example, my statement was referred to by an arb and another user and substituting it with other content (such as behavioural evidence) would make the statements which refer to mine absurd. The feasible way to launch APL 2 is to relaunch the case with a totally different scope, and close this one as moot (the issues initially raised have already been dealt with by non-ArbCom means), unless you decide to change the COIN thread close. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

statement possibly to be removed

Jehochman's statement --> Icewhiz denies harassing anyone, and claims that Piotrus and friends made false complaints [email by Icewhiz to me].. since revised by J.-->[20]

@Jehochman - When was the last time you communicated with Icewhiz? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman responded to the above question here -->[21] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman filed case specifying the issue as:

If a newspaper publishes an article critical of an editor's editing, can the editor remove that newspaper article, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia? [22]

Several hours later the issue identified by Jehochman has changed to:

Upon review, I found credible evidence of a "Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists." (words of Benjakob).. [23] (Text comparison here -->[24])

Facts:

Jehochman acknowledges corresponding by e-mail with Icewhiz [25]
declares not giving credence to anything Icewhiz says [26]
provides info that Haaretz is preparing a new article... book, documenting systemic problems with Wikipedia's Holocaust articles. [27]. When asked about the source of that information Jehochman doesn't give a clear answer [28] and subsequently ceases responding.[29]
reveals that all (?) is going to be exposed by the press. [30] (link to the entire conversation -->[31])

Issues:

Jehochman accused named editors of falsifying history in Eastern Europe for nationalistic ends [32], distorting articles about the Holocaust in Poland [33], damaging the encyclopedia via ahistoricism [34] and organized nationalist manipulation. [35],

I would like to see those serious accusations backed by diff's.

Summary:

I'm deeply concerned that Jehochman might be manipulated by the banned user who is attempting to wage further battles against his ex-foes via proxy. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Arbitrators:

If this case is accepted within the current scope, we are enabling Icewhiz. He is monitoring every word here and will participate via some kind of proxy. I assure you of that. Do we want that to happen? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all

Do you know what is really mind-boggling folks? Mind-boggling is the reality that one banned dangerous individual, can still exploit and manipulate Wikipedia editors, journalists and even perhaps some scholars. How many more e-mails, phone calls etc. did he make and to whom? Lord only knows.. We are all playing Icewhiz's game and on his terms.

In response to all the people who are claiming that the concerns over Icewhiz socking are overblown, below is the list of all Icewhiz's socks that have been blocked so far:

The list does not contain blocked sockpuppets of his banned friends working together with Icewhiz's sock puppets, such as blocked today User:Polska_jest_Najważniejsza (translation of the chosen nick name --> Poland is the most important)

Link to the above sock puppets statement here -->[36] Notice: ..that's why Wikipedia made to the media in a negative sense a number of times (after the case was closed); and that's why it reportedly is gonna make it to headlines again. Quite soon.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, the above statement of PJN sounds like blackmail.. do it what I say or..- GizzyCatBella🍁 02:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I'm sorry, but the more I examine Jehochman's remarks as they keep coming and transforming, the more serious questions I have regarding the motives for filing this and the circumstances behind it. I also would like ArbCom to notice Jehochman's charge at one of the users who happened to be critical of him here. [37] (I'm speechless ) - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(word count - around 500+)

Let this -->[38] sink in. GizzyCatBella🍁 06:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Warsaw Concentration Camp)

User:Barkeep49 asks: "For those who will suggest we accept this case, what do you see as our scope because we're not going to rule on content?" I am not saying that ArbCom should accept, but I am prepared to answer what the scope is if ArbCom accepts the case, and to use that as a guide to whether the case must be accepted. But I will first answer another question by Barkeep49: "The question of when an editor can remove a (reliable) source critical of them in their role as an editor [(as opposed to the more typical situation of a BLP removing a (reliable) source critical about them for whatever makes them notable)] feels worthy of an answer." The answer to that question, whether an editor can remove information that is critical of them, should be: No. No. No way. That would be inconsistent with neutral point of view and would be a conflict of interest. No editor should be permitted to edit for a self-serving reason, even in order to correct what they see as an error. Whether that has happened is a conduct issue. ArbCom should accept a case if there is a conduct issue, including self-serving edits, that the community is not resolving or cannot resolve. In particular, ArbCom should accept this case, as one that the community cannot resolve, if it involves sensitive information that cannot be released to the community. We know that there is sensitive information that cannot be released, involved in the global ban of Icewhiz. If ArbCom is not sure whether they need to open a case to look into conduct issues including self-serving editing, then they should open a case to look into conduct issues including self-serving editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

I didnt see Captain Eek offer to close the COIN thread, and I thought the consensus there was fairly obvious and did it myself. If yall gonna do that then Ill revert my close. nableezy - 05:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, User:Piotrus, I can break it down for you. (moving explanation of close to COIN close comment) nableezy - 14:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ill also say that in general I found, and find, the EEML references completely useless. Unless things have changed, we dont brand people for life for wrongdoing. EEML happened, the users were sanctioned, and they were allowed back. If there is evidence for some new wrongdoing then present that, but repeatedly harping on cases from over a decade ago is unhelpful and borders on casting aspersions. nableezy - 14:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Largely in agreement with Black Kite, and I think if accepted part of the scope should include what constitutes WP:PROXYING for a globally banned editor. Is saying, in a request for arbitration against two people who this editor harassed incessantly, that one is in contact with this user and then relaying their thoughts and feelings proxying? But you already have discretionary sanctions in this topic area, if any admin, literally just one, feels that any party is acting in a way that is disruptive or tendentious they can already ban them. You dont need a majority of sitting arbs to decide that, which is the only possible outcome for a case about a topic with DS already authorized. nableezy - 20:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If any other user not directly involved in the COIN thread feels I should not have closed it, a note on my talk page is all it will take to have me revert it to the prior state. nableezy - 18:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I apologize for any part I played in the devolution on Christmas day. Second, I think we already have settled policy on off-wiki attacks, and that seems like something, again, that could be raised elsewhere. That said, some things do need to be settled. It is a fact that Icewhiz socks continue to have an impact here eg the timeline of the latest batch of socks at ANI or RSN on the content side, and that has understandably led to what seems like a siege mentality where thwarting Icewhiz is as important as our usual goal here (improving the encyclopedia). But thwarting Icewhiz cannot mean that other users who hold positions that resembles what he holds can be dismissed on that basis, and a reminder to that effect is probably merited. But it can be given at AE. The other thing that needs to be dealt with is the actual socking, meatpuppeting, and proxying (and no I am not accusing anybody here of anything, but pretending like it doesnt exist does you no favors). EC is an extreme measure, and that has not eliminated it. I dont think things can be locked down further here, and Im at a loss as to what else can be done. nableezy - 18:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

I was going to say the issue looked intractable, that the consensus process had broken down. Content was being decided by brute force and tag teaming. Administrators weren't taking action on editors, despite this issue ending up at noticeboards before. There was full protection for a while, but obviously it didn't solve anything and the edit war just continued after the scrutiny died down. That's not the way content disputes should be decided.

But then this RFAR was filed, and then nableezy closed the COIN thread. The judgement of the COIN should influence the closing of the other RfCs, thus offering a way out of this dispute, should there be a willing closer after the discussion periods lapse. If editors disagree with nableezy's close, there is always the usual WP:CLOSECHALLENGE process at WP:AN. (I'm biased, but I think nableezy closed it correctly. I also think it would be in ArbCom's remit to pass a judgement on the matter, as ArbCom [via case principles] does interpret community policy and decides how it applies to niche conduct scenarios, but we may not be at that point yet.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

I completely agree with Jehochman's evaluation, and think Alanscottwalker's proposal is reasonable. However, I would encourage the committee to review editors' and admins' behavior, since it is beyond me how comments like these can pass off as legitimate without triggering immediate admin involvement:

02:00, 22 November 2021 "it seems that the only reason some editors are so adamant on including this source... is simply because they want to 'stick it to Piotrus'. I think it's very clear that insistence on this particular, very flawed and unnecessary source, is to both grief Piotrus (and some other editors) and at the same time "protect Icewhiz's legacy" or something like that."
20:17, 26 November 2021 "This whole thing is here simply because a banned editor and his friends and a bunch of sock puppets went and spammed this incident into as many articles as they could as a form of "revenge" for the fact that said editor got side banned from all WMF projects"
18:42, 27 November 2021 "all of this is a whole bunch of bad faithed ridiculous HOOEY pushed by Icewhiz's friends and meatpuppets on Wikipedia... These friends - let's put all our cards on the table here - are Levivich and Francois Robere (usually supported in these endeavors by various sock puppets of Icewhiz or other indef banned users)."
19:01, 27 November 2021 "Levivich's write up is a masterwork of cynical sophistry, strategic omission and manipulation"
Off-Wiki, three days ago: "Icewhiz's on-wiki proxies and meatpuppets - these days mostly Francois Robere and Levivich, since others got banned - have been trying to manufacture a pretext for a new case for the past year and a half. They've been picking fights that on the surface seem mind numbingly dumb and shallow, until you realize that the picked fight is just a means to an end. And that end is a new case in this topic area, where they get to relitigate the whole thing on Icewhiz's behalf."

Also note an earlier incident on the same subject.

François Robere (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: You forgot to mention your five behavioral warnings to Volunteer Marek, which never materialized into sanctions.[39][40][41][42][43][44] François Robere (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki: Thanks for the notice. I think it's due to timezone adjustment on my end (there's an option in the preferences), so it shows differently for me. François Robere (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Robby.is.on has it right. I cleared my watchlist back in July and today only participate in board discussions or when I'm pinged, and very rarely elsewhere. François Robere (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: There's evidence of a range of policy violations, but given how this process has been going so far, I see little reason for anyone to want to present it and involve themselves further. François Robere (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Opening: regrets

Agree with pretty much everything ProcrastinatingReader says above, including about nableezy's close being correct.

I'd like to also state for the record that I was fairly instrumental in seeing Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella TBANs lifted (with the unrelenting harassment they were both subjected to being the mitigating factor), and I also treated Piotrus with an especial leniency for violating CANVASS, with a sanction that was basically symbolic. The greatest blunder of my Wikipedia career bar none. El_C 11:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, that many? Still, ~~even if so,~~ those warning were more on the softer side of CIVIL enforcement / tone policing, which I don't usually sanction for. VM's warnings weren't special in that regard [for example, I think I've given Calton more such warnings than I had VM]. I rarely if ever block for disparate acts of rudeness. But whatever, I acknowledge that you have valid grievances wrt myself. El_C 11:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, François Robere. I didn't realize that you almost left because of my inaction. Honestly, I was a bit overwhelmed at the time and I just wanted to avoid dealing with a gauntlet that would be time and energy consuming, and one which would have been difficult to defend (a sanction for soft violations) and likely to be overturned. I just didn't have the stamina at the time and probably should have just left it to someone else. El_C 11:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, RE: DS notice for related noticeboards discussions. It is not the case, but that's a good idea. El_C 11:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I think you misunderstand. A noticeboard discussion is subject to DS like anywhere else on the prject. There just isn't a template listed in Template:Ds/topics/single notice to formally notify participants about it. El_C 12:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, I know. For my part, I did my best to treat Buidhe with extra leniency, not least because I think she's an excellent scholar. But I'm only one man. El_C 14:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks

Barkeep49, thank you for the kind words and encouragement. Indeed, it hasn't been easy. And I've made mistakes big and small that I'm not proud of. I think many of which stemmed from me finding it difficult to say no to specific requests on my talk page (so many!). But I'm learning. Thanks again!

El_C 17:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, a bit of an aside, but Sandstein (or Uncle Sandstein as I like calling him, to his obvious delight!) 's heavy lifting at WP:AE was largely before it also became my focus. I'm unable to immediately recall the specifics of why he quit AE in disgust, but I do vaguely remember agreeing with him at the time. In any case, he does good work elsewhere now. Seraphimblade is still going strong at AE, however, where he continues to do good work. </suck up> Quote: "El C in 68" — ugh, so close! El_C 20:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jehochman. Now endure my H:THANKS spam. I think we're at 3 today and day is far from done! El_C 21:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a lot happened in the 4 days since I wrote the above. But broadly speaking, I think there's a continuum here, whose two two polar opposites could be summed up as follows (quotes):

Hear that distant noise? That's Icewhiz pointing and laughing at ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC) — diff
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a sock puppet of, or a proxy editor for, a banned user.” Love it. Calidum 19:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC) — diff

Stuck in the... withdrawals with you:

Suspension

Jehochman withdrawal (of sort) — diff
Levivich withdrawal — diff
My very best wishes withdrawal — diff
Alanscottwalker withdrawal — diff
Volunteer Marek withdrawal — diff
GizzyCatBella withdrawal — diff

And hey, I sympathize. It's just I've never seen anything like this in an arbitration request before. Strange days. El_C 21:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like during the suspension, the conversation largely shifted to the WPO. Volunteer Marek, I realize it's off-wiki (ish), but there's quite a dissonance to ending a substantive response (to SashiRolls) with: Now. Stop lying. Stop trolling. Go fuck yourself. And it's also just over the top. So I didn't like that. El_C 12:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar discussion: User_talk:El_C#4 days later is like 28 days later just with fewer zombies (permalink). El_C 13:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, RE: Icewhiz's on-wiki proxies and meatpuppets - these days mostly Francois Robere and Levivich [etc.] — ah, I missed that. That's much worse. El_C 13:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, it isn't about naughty words. That would be dumb. I say fuck, shit, etc., all the time on-wiki (probably more than I ought to). But the dissonance through me off, which I found to be a bit concerning tbh.

I also find it striking that on my talk page you asked to: Let people have their safe spaces. I'm not preventing you from speaking over there about over here, but it sounds like you want to prevent me from speaking over here about over there. Why would I do that?

Finally, the obvious: how are Levivich and François Robere expected to interact with you collegially on-wiki when they are aware that at the WPO you said that they were Icewhiz's on-wiki proxies and meatpuppets. Please explain that to me. The point is that treating those who disagree with you on the content with contempt poisons the well, where the waters are bitter enough already. This is not new information. El_C 17:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC) [word count: 400][reply]

Uh, nableezy, my comment above wasn't a pretense. I actually did not expect VM to conduct himself like that when I asked ARBCOM to lift his TBAN. Maybe have the fortitude to say that to me, here, rather to "people" over there. That and other shocking developments tonight at 11. Such as: did I break the sacred separation of Church and State again? Oh right, but you said it to ever-understanding Jake, how silly of me. Why can't I still respect "safe spaces"? Alas, if only I was able to save myself from... myself. You suck, past me! El_C 23:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pabsoluterince

I agree entirely with @Szmenderowiecki: in terms of the core questions that need to be resolved for the future and his well reasoned assessment of the situation. Given the close, I - who voted for COI - think that normal processes should only be dealt with by arbitration if they once again falter. Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the scope moves further away from the original COI issues I am less qualified to comment. Despite this, I will: it seems that there is not enough enforcement of the DS and behaviour is lapsing. I agree with accepting the case if it can address behaviour not meeting expectations. Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

I'll just repeat my previously noted comment that the conduct of other editors in this topic area has driven me from this area. So @El C: it's not just Francois, others have been driven away by the editor behavior that's been allowed to "flourish" (I'd say that @Buidhe: would be another, and before we lost her, SlimVirgin/Sarah was a third). That said, I don't think this case request is well-framed to look into the issues in the topic area. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add further to my statement that I'm leaving today for the annual holiday trip to the inlaws, and am utterly unable to put forth the level of effort that would be required to form up a properly framed request, but that one of the major issues that remains in this topic area is that the previous cases have all been hamstrung in various ways. My evidence in this case was severely hamstrung by evidence limits... and any case in the future that is likewise limited is going to also run into trouble, because the conduct issues are subtle and difficult to explain without a knowledge of the subject area ... which unlike plain incivility is impossible to confine/condense down to 500 words. The problems involved are cavalier use of sources, cherrypicking of sources, use of marginal or outright bad sources - all of which plays out in an atmosphere of battleground, tagteaming, accusations of sockpuppetry, too zealous chasing of sockpuppets, and incivility that is let slide. But... I do not have time to devote to this until January, and to be honest, I was so disheartened by the lack of attention to the evidence I submitted before and how things just continued to be allowed to be awful that I gave up. If I thought the committee would actually LOOK at the evidence of the above, I'd devote some time to digging into it in January (and dig out the books/sources so I could document the problems with use of sources) but frankly it'll turn into a case much like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine and I'm not sure anyone is ready for that again. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert: I believe you have me confused with someone else. I did not list editors nor link to and AfD. Please fix. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlexEng

I have very little to add here, except to strenuously entreat ArbCom to accept this request. As a participant in the at times aggravating COIN discussion that precipitated this case request, I believe that one of the issues at the heart of this matter is editors' misinterpretation – or perhaps correct interpretation, if I am wrong – of the WP:COI guideline's strong discouragement to edit content related to an external relationship, summarized in WP:EXTERNALREL. It is my sincere hope that the result of this case will at least partially clarify how we define external relationships and whether editors are welcome to make editorial decisions on the inclusion of content that relates explicitly to their editing. I may add to this statement later, time permitting. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: would you mind clarifying what you mean by enabling Icewhiz? If other editors share concerns about a particular topic, should those concerns be dismissed when they coincide with opinions held by a banned user? I'm not sure I understand how that enables that user. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: does your entire argument just rest on the name Icewhiz? You don't need 500 words for that. This is the same behavior you exhibited in the COIN thread noted above: Icewhiz; Q.E.D.. It's not a reasonable excuse to dismiss a person's point. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

I largely agree with Ealdgyth; but I do not think an additional arbitration case will help. Most of the committee is aware of my administrative involvement in this general conflict area in the past, and also why I choose not to be particularly involved anymore. The committee has already authorized discretionary sanctions in this topic area under WP:ARBEE, and has clarified that it applies to the Holocaust in Poland area. While this is easily one of the most difficult areas to work as an administrator, I am not convinced that an additional case will achieve anything the previous cases have not achieved.

The solution to the Poland topic area is administrators liberally applying the existing Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions without fear or favour. I am not convinced that process has failed to such a point to require additional intervention by the committee, and I have not been one to be afraid of asking for committee intervention in this area in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification this edit summary wasn't a comment on any member of the committee. I don't have ACN or ARC on my watchlist, so was commenting on inadvertently stumbling onto a case I've had some experience with in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I can't help but think that taking this case with its current focus (i.e. only two named editors in this editing area) is merely, yet again, enabling Icewhiz (who, let's not forget, is a banned editor for a very good reason involving actual real-world harm to other editors). Whether that was Jehochman's purpose in raising this, I am unsure. I would really hope not.

If it is to be taken, it does need to be overarching (with no named editors) or it needs to include a lot of editors. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AlexEng Because Icewhiz wants the two named editors removed from that editing areas (he has tried before with socks) and whilst I'm not taking ArbCom for idiots, we all know from previous experience that a case will focus on the behaviour of the named editors, not the many other editors who are involved in this shambles. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hear that distant noise? That's Icewhiz pointing and laughing at ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robby.is.on

@Volunteer Marek: Thing is, I don’t know if this has been pointed out, but the topic area has actually been quiet for the past few months, aside from this whole COIN kertuffle (which isn’t even content related). An occasional sock pops up, causes some trouble then gets banned. There might be some discussion off in some corner but generally there really hasn’t been much controversy (again, except for this COI issue and Jehochman going around to people’s talk pagesand trying to whip up an angry mob). 500/30 is working. DS is mostly working. Note that no one has actually pointed out even a single problematic content issue. As has been pointed out repeatedly, many editors in very good standing such as Ealdgyth, Buidhe, François Robere and SlimVirgin have been driven away from this topic area. So perhaps there aren't that many experienced editors left who are willing and able to cause "controversy"? Robby.is.on (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ermenrich

I would like to say that I was also driven away from editing this topic area - I really only participate in it when there's an RfC or some other large-scale thing going on. Saying that the topic area has been "quiet" seems disingenuous to me. Many editors want nothing to do with it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the actors mentioned by Jehochman basically control the topic area, especially after two of them had their topic bans removed. In the wake of the latest Icewhiz scare there was a large-scale campaign to remove any mention of the fact that the Warsaw Concentration Camp page had hosted a hoax intended to show that Poles suffered as much or more than Jews in the Second World War - because Icewhiz. Icewhiz is basically used as an excuse to win arguments, and there are constant accusations of sock puppetry etc., almost all thrown out by one side. Even I have been implied to be a sock by one of the users mentioned by Jehochman. This is not to suggest that there is not socking going on, as a recent block shows, but I do not believe it's as prevalent as certain users continually imply, and this obsession with Icewhiz is unproductive and unhelpful.

I believe that the problems of the topic area do in fact stem from behavioral issues and that normal channels have not worked. I urge ArbCom to accept this case.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount:, I’m sorry but that statement is really beyond the pale. Accusing other editors of causing you to lose your job and have a mini-stroke is beyond ridiculous, particularly when no evidence has been provided of harassment or “Wiki-attacks”. I strongly suggest striking these comments as personal attacks in Francois Robere Levivich and Jehochman.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the above, I would submit this diff (to which I was needlessly pinged) as an example of the sort of unpleasantness involvement in this topic is involved. I am implied to be a sock (“came out of nowhere”), and my contributions to the encyclopedia in general are called into question - even though I’ve been editor of the week! This is the sort of nonsense the makes no one want anything to do with this subject.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

The continued harassment by Icewhiz, and wikipedia attacks by François Robere and to lesser extent Levivich has led to severe detoriation of my health, loss of my job and contributed to eventual mini stroke and hospital confimment. As such I have largely decided to leave Wikipedia and will no longer be active. Unlike Piotrus or Volunteer Marek I do not have the mental resilience to whitstand such amount of harassment, stalking and attacks. While Wikipedia has been my passion and hobby for many years, the vile atmosphere created by Icewhiz and editors proxing for him such as Levivich and François Robere has turned it into simple trolling ground. If any case is opened the issue of editors like François Robere, Jehochman and Levivic proxing for Icewhiz should be looked into. Icewhiz and François Robere can congratulate themselves-I will no longer write on Wikipedia. Arbcom-please delete my account.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calidum

“Everyone who disagrees with me is a sock puppet of, or a proxy editor for, a banned user.” Love it. Calidum 19:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Comments like these from VM [45] [46] [47] have a chilling effect on ongoing discussions. It's also rich for him to claim he has "no direct possible involvement" [48] in the matter on one hand but then justifies his bludgeoning the discussion by stating he is only defending himself [49] two days later. Which is it? Calidum 15:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:力

I see three possible scopes, and encourage the committee to reject all three of them:

There is the argument that articles in the topic area, years after the previous case, are still profoundly biased and inaccurate. That would be ripe for arbitration, but no evidence is presented. On this topic, perhaps the committee will note that a case (with its higher word limits) may be opened by motion if it receives evidence by email.
There is an argument that the accusations of sockpuppetry are themselves disruptive. This scope would need to also discuss similar accusations in the gender identity topic area, making this already contentious case even more contentious. I don't think that's ripe for arbitration - the community has not attempted to determine if there is an issue or how it can be resolved. Also, the recent known sockpuppetry means there probably is a basis for some of the accusations.
There is also a scope of "how can we make Icewhiz even more banned". That is a matter for the committee to discuss with the WMF privately.

Therefore, I urge the committee to decline the case at this time. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 15:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darwinek

The objective of this case is unclear to me. WP:COIN is closed and resolved, WP:BLPSELF is there for anyone to read. It seems to me like a good old beating around the bush, unfortunately coming in the holiday season.

I am concerned about Icewhiz's ongoing influence in the topic area through socks. Some users may seem as being "paranoid" about him, but Icewhiz socks get blocked almost every week, and they always take a while to fish out. Heck, one of them even ran in WP:RFA. I find empowering him through communicating with him and citing his revelations, which is what Jehochman did, extremely unbecoming, particularly of an admin, who are supposed to protect, not harass, members of the community. Jehochman wrote "Haaretz is preparing a new article, and an expert is writing a book, documenting systemic problems with Wikipedia's Holocaust articles.". As I said above, it is highly problematic for an admin to communicate with a globally locked, WMF-banned user, who got banned, i.a. for aggressively doxing his wiki-enemies. How are we supposed to read that cryptic message? As we do not know who Icewhiz really is, and as he has been found to even impersonate living people, including experts, any article or book endorsing his story may be tainted, since he can be not only "Icewhiz, the source" but ultimately "Icewhiz, the author".

I agree the Holocaust in Poland topic area is not an easy one, and may seem even toxic to some but it was Icewhiz who messed it up big time, and created battleground out of it. In my opinion, the standing AE recommendations / sanctions in this TA work, are sufficient, and allow users to work / expand this topic area freely following our best practices. Case closed. - Darwinek (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Warsaw concentration camp: Clerk notes

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

Clerk note: Editors are reminded that word limits need to be kept to in this case request (as is stated at the top of the page). If you have more word or diffs than allowed in your statement you should either request an extension or reword your statement to keep under the limits. Extensions can be requested as detailed at the top of this page. @Piotrus, Volunteer Marek, Levivich, Szmenderowiecki, and Nableezy: you are all over the word limit of 500 words by my count. You may request extensions or shorten your statement. Jehochman is also over but has requested an extension (and so is already aware and does not need to be pinged). If statements are still over the limit in the next few days (except if you are waiting on a request for an extension) they are likely to be shortened by a clerk. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your request Piotrus and have passed it on to the arbs. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: @Szmenderowiecki: We've seen your request for an extension and it is currently under discussion on the Clerk's mailing list. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: Word count extensions have been granted by the committee to the following parties with the following stipulations:
- @Volunteer Marek: - 750 words, plus reasonable replies to arbitrators up to a further 250 words.
- @Jehochman: - reasonable replies to arbitrators up to a further 250 words. If you need an additional 250 words please contact a clerk.
- @Piotrus: - 750 words, with more possible if you are able to be more concise with your current statement.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert:, you are over the word count limit of 500. You should reduce the length of your statement or request an extension as detailed at the top of this page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek:, you have only added to the length of your statement which is over your word count limit of 750 words (currently over 1000 words). If it is not trimmed soon it will be reduced to your increased word limit by cutting off the end. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note:Jehochman's section closed per discussion on Clerks-L. Jehochman has been notified. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clerical note: The Committee has decided to suspend this case request for 48 hours, during which time this page should not be edited (except by arbs and clerks). Several editors have removed their statements; consistent with the talk page guidelines, in order to maintain continuity in the discussion, those statements will be restored in a collapsed form. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw concentration camp: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

There's zero doubt that the conversations around this have been very difficult and it's unsurprising that someone would look our way. Questions on my mind: For those who will suggest we accept this case, what do you see as our scope because we're not going to rule on content? For those who would suggest we decline, how do you see this conflict resolving short of a case? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I continue to read the perspectives of community members with interest, and have done a re-read of the diffs provided, I am inclined to suggest that the option provided by Alanscottwalker is a good one if there is someone willing to do it. The question of when an editor can remove a (reliable) source critical of them in their role as an editor (as opposed to the more typical situation of a BLP removing a (reliable) source critical about them for whatever makes them notable) feels worthy of an answer. I see some bludgeoning and other behavior in that COIN thread such that the average uninvolved editor may be reluctant to close. This does not mean, from my read, that there is no consensus to be found, or even if there is no consensus no value from a formal close. The open RfC seems to indicate our dispute resolution methods are working in other ways and I am not seeing evidence (so far) that a broader examination of editor behavior is necessary, rather than using AE as needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the comments of some community members, I want to make some replies before I note what I think the appropriate way forward for ArbCom is:
Icewhiz is a harasser and through his harassment has caused real pain to members of the community. Some of that pain has been noted in this discussion, much of it has not but I have seen the evidence of it directly and indirectly. His zealotry means he continues to go to lengths most would not to advance his POV, of which the harassment is but one element. And what a vile element it is. Harassment has no place onwiki and Icewhiz is an ongoing threat to our functioning as an encyclopedia and to specific editors who face his harassment. I don't think Jehochman's skepticism towards the foundation and this committee is out of bounds per se - though I will underscore once again I cannot think him more wrong on the merits in this case - but by posting it he has caused pain to victims of that harassment. I would ask him to take that into account when discussing the topic in the future. I am going to go on to write about a bunch of other topics, but I feel that what I've written here about harassment is the most important topic I will write about and I would ask those reading it to view it through that lens.

I think the invocation of EEML in the discussions diffed here, and which I see elsewhere, to be unnecessary, slightly unfair, and certainly inaccurate. Is there evidence of editors coordinating offwiki around nationalistic content? If yes, bringing up EEML may be appropriate. If not, I suggest they find other, more accurate ways, to label the behavior that they're concerned about at this moment.

@Levivich: while some editors, some admin, and even some Arbs may not do sufficient reading to examine behavior I think you know that is not universal and to the extent that you want something actually addressed one needs to make the leap of faith to trust the process. I know I'm not saying anything you don't know and I acknowledge your participation here is if not a full leap at least a jump.

@Volunteer Marek: it feels, for reasons that I find understandable (see my first bullet point here), that you're getting more upset up as you sit with this. As I've been working on this reply I can feel your emotions rising through my my monitor. I want to acknowledge that.

@El C: this is one of the hardest areas we have to admin on wikipedia. I am obviously willing to tackle hard problems, but outside of what is asked at me at ArbCom I have little desire to work this area. That you have done so for so long and at that the level you have is something I appreciate. It cannot be easy. That the the work is imperfect, in situations where whatever you do it'll be imperfect, is to be expected.
Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy has closed the COIN thread with what I see as a reasonable summary of the consensus and has further explained it here in a way that shows community ability to interpret policy and guidelines on this topic. So I do not think ArbCom intervention is needed to further address that question other than to effectively endorse it as a valid community outcome. I see no reason that ArbCom intervention would be needed at this time in any of the other discussions linked here as they are following normal community practice and I see no indication they can't be handled by the community.
That only leaves examining behavior in those places to see if anything is necessary as a potential scope for ArbCom to handle. Normally that would be done at WP:AE and I don't oppose us pointing people concerned about behavior in that direction. However, I think ultimately we should not pass the buck on this. As we've seen here the temperature in this topic is high, it is within the scope of Antisemitism in Poland, and behavior in the diffs and in this very case request suggest some work is needed. I think we are entirely with-in our remit and in a way consistent with our practice to handle this ourselves. I am open to how we do that - I think something more akin to an AE report may be more helpful and proportionate than our case structure - but I my first preference is for us to accept handling it as our responsibility rather than asking the admins of AE to do it. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: ultimately we're responsible for Arbitration Enforcement. We don't staff it, but its work, as indicated right there in the name, is an extension of this committee and its powers are devolved from WP:ARBPOL. We have editors and patrolling admin present writing about the difficulty of enforcement in this situation. That suggests we've reached the stage where the "last" is appropriate, especially as it involves an area for which there has already been a case. Further I am suggesting that this committee is better positioned, as a group, to make some difficult decisions (as a decision to do nothing or do something would both be difficult for the editors we're talking about) than individual admins at AE. But I'm also not sure that a full case is the best format for us to handle this as it seems excessive. The AE format provides a structure that allows for formalized comment and evidence based decision making but on a timeline and effort level, from both arbs and participants, that is less than a full case. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For procedural reasons I am going to formally vote to accept with a scope of Holocaust in Poland 2 and with adding some parties. I remain unconvinced that we need a full case to do the work needed - I think an AE structure staffed by the committee could be effective. But I see something that rises to the level of needing ArbCom work. Specifically I see conduct that falls outside the level we expect, the kind of conduct for which DS was created. I also see comments here suggesting that use of DS is hard for individual administrators for a variety of reasons. For one sanctioning or not sanctioning editors draws criticism. The committee is uniquely situated to act as a group and explicitly trusted to make the hard calls. As either decision is a hard call, I think it falls on us to make it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite I am obviously suggesting more parties with a wider scope. So if you (or others) have suggestions as to who they would be, I would be interested in hearing them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD can you explain more about your circus comment? From my point of view, if there's going to be a circus we're the best equipped to handle it and I worry that if we decline this case it won't be read as "come back if things don't improve" but "ArbCom isn't going to handle it." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is to have ArbCom formally close the COIN thread; that would be a conduct not a content problem imo. I think we could probably do that by motion: either they have a COI or they don't. I also like the outgoing arb approach, but since I'm not an outgoing arb I can't really volun-tell someone else. I'm most interested to hear from folks if they think this problem is bigger than this one article, and who else might be a party (specific names, please). Otherwise, I am hesitant to accept cases about a single article, absent something...extraordinary. As a side note, since it is the holidays, I might not be that attentive to this matter until the new year arrives. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uneasy about ArbCom as a group closing an RfC. Since RfC closures are meant to reflect community consensus, the community has always had the power to overturn an RfC closure at AN – how would this change if ArbCom directly closed an RfC? Could the community overturn such a closure? If not, wouldn't such an RfC closure just be us setting (unchangeable) policy?
In any event, Nableezy has now closed the RfC (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_181). Would the parties advise whether further ArbCom action is necessary, and if so, what their preferred actions are? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the statements since my last thoughts and am still considering the way forward, but in the meantime I wish to endorse in full Barkeep49's bullet point about Icewhiz. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am reluctantly voting to accept. If this progresses to a full case (rather than a resolution by motion) we will have to carefully define the scope of this case to ensure that it does not become a case about every issue ever, but based on the ongoing problems in this topic area I am convinced that ArbCom action of some kind is necessary. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  NYB is correct that the COIN/policy question is not on the table. The question is whether a broader case is necessary. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman, Icewhiz was removed for a reason, he would not be able to participate in this case, if it were to go ahead. Removing him does not stop him from being discussed. Please do not re-add. Worm^TT(talk) 14:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some initial thoughts. Firstly, relitigation of past cases is not helpful, be it two years or twelve. What needs to happen is a focus on what can be done now, moving forward. Next, Icewhiz was banned by the Arbitration Committee before he was WMF banned and I believe that WMF made the right decision there. Now, regarding the case in hand, I like the solution offered by Alanscottwalker, but equally I think the arbs that are on their way out deserve a rest, and wouldn't ask that of them.
So that leaves what should happen? Arbcom shouldn't be handling content cases, so some of the other suggestions (especially that of arbcom closing the RfC) feels wrong. This area is fraught with controversy and has lasted for years, but what I'm seeing here is not a fresh upset, but a request to go back over old grounds. It is certainly an area that could fit in Arbcom's wheelhouse - but I'm not certain that it should, as I'm not certain what is being asked of Arbcom. DS is already active in the area under WP:ARBEE, and some specifics under WP:APL. It's plausible that our newly minted arbs will have some bright ideas, and I do expect this case request to still be open in a little over a week, but at the moment, I'm at a loss. Worm^TT(talk) 15:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I fully agree there are some fresh aspects, otherwise I would have declined outright and at present I'm completely on the fence as to whether a case should be opened. By "request to go over some old ground" I was referring to part of the framing of the request and some of the comments. I should have been more clear. Worm^TT(talk) 16:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, your "did you know" statement (diff) is almost meaningless; Sandstein appears in 195 archives, El C in 68, and Seraphimblade in 114, and those are just three AE admins I pulled off the top of my head. In other words, just because you do a search and find them in an archive does not mean they were the instigator, or even involved, in whatever situation led to their name showing up (hell, I am sure if I looked I could find at least one instance where they were named in passing). If you are going to use pointless arguments, expect them to be ignored. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Jehochman (difff), you claimed that these two individuals appeared X amount of times at AE with zero context, as did I for a different set of individuals. Now that you have added more content (and thus provided that context), your statement is no longer pointless. My "mathematical fallacy" was simply made to illustrate my point. I have no issue with your argument as it stands, but in a venue like this throwaway statements need that context in order for them to have any meaning. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, for what it is worth, I apologise if I came across as "supporting" the assertion that you were only at AE because of issues you were the cause of or involved in. My primary concern was the original statement lacking context for why the information was relevant; the "no issue" comment was more about approval of the additional context added than the argument that it was supporting. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that, at the moment, I am a decline. In looking at the initial posting and the dispute resolution steps taken, we have four discussions (one of which being an RFC that has not even reached maturity yet) about a single source. There is also the question of "should a user be able to remove a source about them", which would appear on the surface to be a question that does not need to be answered by a full ArbCom case (at the very most, a motion could handle that). There have been suggestions to expand the case to "Antisemitism in Poland 2" (and if the Committee does accept this case, it is a move that I would support), but I am not seeing enough presented here to indicate that there would be anything new being brought to the table.

~~The above all being said, I know it is still (relatively speaking) early days in this request, and such things to take time to develop and arise, so I consider my opinion to be amenable to adjustment.~~ Primefac (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the absolute nonsense that has pervaded this request the last six hours, with comments that would normally get an editor indeffed in any other forum (and has found me wondering why this has not yet occurred), ~~I find myself convinced to accept this case;~~ clearly there are issues that need to be resolved, and we need to find a way to do so. Per my previous statement, I am still mostly in agreement that the scope should be "Antisemitism in Poland 2" to avoid the personalisation and bickering that would come with a smaller scope, but am concerned at the lack (as NYB has stated below) of any form of evidence that there is actually a case to be made on that wide a scale. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are issues, and they need to be dealt with, but the last 48 hours have been problematic enough that I am not quite comfortable accepting the case as presented; there might be a way to resolve things without a full case though. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, with an intended scope of examining behaviour in the Holocaust–WWII–Poland area (effectively Antisemitism in Poland 2). There are sufficient concerns over tendentious editing and sourcing issues that are within ArbCom's purview to examine. While AE is perhaps the more "correct" venue to examine behaviour within the stated scope, the dispute is complex enough where making certain difficult calls is better done within the collective responsibility of ArbCom, rather than by individual admins or small panels of admins at AE. Maxim_(talk) 18:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline After a lot of review, I don't see how an Antisemitism in Poland 2 case could become anything other than a circus. Nableezy's close has settled the immediate question satisfactorily IMO. Szmenderowiecki does a good job of outlining the larger issues here, and they're all ultimately orthogonal to Poland and the Holocaust—that is, we're discussing them in that context now, but there's no reason for them to be inextricably linked. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49, sure. I don't disagree that we're the best venue, and I'll unequivocally state my own position here that this is not "ArbCom isn't going to [ever] handle it". In this request, I see a rehash of the overall antisemitism/Holocaust in Poland issue and the more specific issue of COI regarding editors mentioned in external publications. I think Nableezy's close has addressed the latter, at least for the time being. As for the bigger issue, the continuing conflict we've seen in this area is much more a product of how inherently contentious this is to many editors—not a failure on the part of our current policies and sanctions.

Hmm. I could've just said "per Primefac". --BDD (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments, in no particular order:
- When I first saw this dispute, I took it that there was a disagreement as to whether our article on the Warsaw Concentration Camp (KL Warschau) should assert that this place of horror went beyond being a concentration camp, terrible enough as that is, and contained also an extermination camp with a gas chamber in which 200,000 more people were murdered. But I see that this incorrect assertion was removed from the article several years ago, and I don't see anyone arguing to include it.
- A news article describes our prior inclusion of that statement as a long-running hoax on Wikipedia. At this late date, no one can determine whether the statement was added to the article with the intent to perpetrate a hoax on Wikipedia, as opposed to incorporation in Wikipedia of an incorrect or invented report that first appeared elsewhere. Most importantly, I don't see any allegation that any currently active editor deliberately perpetrated the misinformation.
- As a sidenote, this incorrect assertion may be a "hoax" as that term is used elsewhere, but it is not the sort of thing that we usually call a "hoax" in our internal wiki-speak. Although there are exceptions, most of the listings in List of hoaxes on Wikipedia appear to be the work of pranksters, not serious history-distorters. Adding deliberate misinformation in the somber context of our Holocaust-related articles would be a very different issue and part of a very different discussion.
- Discussing the EEML at this late date is not likely to be helpful.
- Discussing who has been mentioned on AE and how often is not helpful, unless accompanied by the citation of specific relevant threads.
- Discussing the conduct of Icewhiz, a WMF-banned user, also is not helpful, except to the extent needed for essential background information.
- There were reasonable arguments on both sides of the COIN thread, which is one reason it went on as long and indecisively as it did. The RfC has now been closed, and while there are very legitimate arguments against the outcome that was reached, it is not typically our role to review those decisions.
- The remaining allegation by the filing party is that editors are currently manipulating the content of Holocaust-related articles for reasons of nationalism. This allegation is extremely serious, but it is not supported by any evidence that has been presented on this page. (The most relevant link that has been presented is to evidence that was presented in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland (2019), which related to the interpretation of a single source, and is more than two years old.)
- As a couple of people have noted, we are a committee of generalists, not of historians. The difficulties of asking ArbCom to resolve disputes on historical articles have been reflected in several cases over the years, including not only Antisemitism in Poland, but also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort (2018) and even as far back as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance (2008). Deliberately including misinformation in the encyclopedia, such as by misstating the content of sources, is user misconduct that the Arbitration Committee has the authority to prevent. But that is a serious accusation, which if made must be supported by evidence of a pattern of misbehavior.
- The decision in Antisemitism in Poland reaffirmed that discretionary sanctions apply to articles about Poland and the Holocaust. I am familiar with the difficulties of our AE process, especially in complicated situations. I've seen AE reports (not necessarily in this topic area) resolved on the basis of which editor might have inadvertently violated 1RR or not, as opposed to deeper issues; the AE admins, whose work we appreciate, are not necessarily any better equipped to resolved historiographical disputes or to discern editors' motivations than we are. But at the moment, at least, we have not been shown in this request that the AE process in this area has been tried and found wanting—or even that there have been major infractions warranting its having been tried.
- I understand and sympathize with the concern that the context of both case requests and actual cases, presentation of relevant evidence has been hamstrung by our word limits. While word limits are an understandable necessity that helps keep statements and evidence focused and limits the arbitrators' reading burden to a reasonable level, when rigidly enforced they can have the effect of cutting the arbitrators off from relevant information and evidence, which in the long run helps no one. This is a concern I've raised before and next year's committee may wish to revisit this subject. (This is not a criticism of the arbitration clerks who help enforce the limits at our request.)
- Bottom line: I'll hold off on voting for another day or two, but leaning decline at this time. If a case is accepted by December 31, I will remain active on it until conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update/Summary: This request has utterly morphed from being basically a request that we close a noticeboard discussion thread, a wiki-internal matter that has now been addressed, into the assertion that we have "a four-alarm emergency" of incompetence and misinformation in one of the world's most sensitive topic-areas. This is asserted more and more emphatically with each passing day, yet still unaccompanied by any specific examples of current or recent problems. The implicit, or now almost explicit, suggestion is that if ArbCom doesn't wade into the situation we will bear responsibility for negative press coverage of our Holocaust content, but that doesn't help me decide an arbitration request. Ealdgyth's statement that she has substantive evidence to offer is of interest, and her comments both that she is away for the holidays and would need well over 500 words are both reasonable enough, but I can't vote to open a case of this magnitude based on potential information we might be presented with at a future time. In the meantime, if there is a four-alarm emergency, then someone should please be able to tell us where specifically the emergency is located and who is allegedly causing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still leaning decline. The issue raised in the original case request has been resolved, the scope of the revised case request that has arisen in its place is vague and sprawling, and still no evidence has been presented to support the most serious allegations. In view of the holiday and the ongoing input from other arbitrators, I'll wait a day or two before casting a final vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've not commented here yet, but have been following this on a daily basis,trying to get some sense of what the case would essentially be about were it accepted. On the question of if it is appropriate for a user to remove a source that mentions them by either their username or real name, that matter has, for the moment, been resolved by "lower" processes, namely WP:COIN, and I thank Nableezy for their detailed, thoughtful comments in making that close. There is no evidence I can see to support framing this as "the second coming of EEML" so I can't accept it on that basis. That leaves "only arbcom can solve this" and basically accepting it as "Antisemitism in Poland 2". This is where I'm stuck. We've not been presented with evidence that the existing sanctions, as modified just a few months ago, have even been tested at WP:AE yet. However, we've also got several user suggesting that the reason the area is relatively quiet is that it is so unpleasant that most users simply want nothing to do with it. That very much is exactly the sort of problem ArbCom is here to resolve, if it can. At this time I have no vote on accepting or declining. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*:Accept per Primefac and Katie. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC) I'm considering recent developments and possible alternatives as it has gotten more and mor eunclear what this case would actually be about. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept because, even though this is gonna be an Icewhiz mess, I don't think we should be kicking the can down the road. Let's do it or don't. If it's accepted by the full committee before my term ends, I'll remain active on this case until it's concluded. Katie^talk 17:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accept -my concern is the neutrality of the 'pedia. Right now, I have no idea if the concerted armwrestling is pushing material away or toward Reliability and Neutrality. The long term issues are not able to be dealt with in a regular manner and hence needs to be sorted here. My scope is all editors taking an active role in aforesaid armwrestling. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basing a request on a two-year-old newspaper article, which itself was based on an interview with an arbcom blocked, globally locked, WMF-banned editor strikes me as falling somewhere on a scale between being used as a cat's paw and unthinking WP:PROXYING. I'm disinclined to dance to Icewhiz' tune.
The other incidental issues have either been handled (COIN closed by Nableezy) or should be handled elsewhere (complaints regarding handling of WP:BLPSELF). The objective of a case is unclear except to reiterate AE remedies already in place. I'm veering towards a decline. Cabayi (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to decline for now for two reasons.
1. The case request doesn't show sufficient evidence that pre-ArbCom dispute mechanisms have failed. It looks to me like COIN may have identified a conduct issue, but I assume that conduct issue will be a non-issue going forward now that the COIN discussion is closed; the probable parties are smarter than to go against a noticeboard close, right? I would suggest that if there are further issues on that dimension, AE and AN would be interested to hear about them. Given the mention particularly of the DS in the area and certain editors' proclivities at those forums, I would also be interested in evidence that indicates the likely parties have been to AE/AN but where AE/AN has been unable to resolve some pattern of misbehavior.
2. Besides the lack of stated evidence so far (or at least, of evidence that this dispute is beyond the ability of the community to handle), there is also the apparently unique disinterest made evident by several parties in the past day or two....
In both regards, I do not think this case is ripe for ArbCom at this time. --Izno (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 147: / Line 147: @@
 @[[User:El_C]] re: comments on WPO [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C#4_days_later_is_like_28_days_later_just_with_fewer_zombies] A teacher requires that his students don’t use “naughty words” in his classroom. He then learns that one of his pupils used one of those “naughty words” at home with his parents (and parents were cool with that). The teacher then goes running to the school principal “Mr. Principal! Mr. Principal! Marek uses naughty words at home!” <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 16:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
+Re: [[User:Levivich]], relying on another indef banned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=SashiRolls&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions] user posting on Wikipediocracy, mentions Piotrus’ article in Gazeta Wyborcza, then says {{tq| Look at the 2021 history of Jan Grabowski (…) and tell me you don't see WP:BLP/WP:COI-violating tag-team edit warring}}. So again. No diffs. Just [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and a general vague link to the article’s history. Ok. Fine. Let’s look at “2021 history of Jan Grabowski” and the edits by Piotrus. There’s … THREE of them. OH MY GOD THREE EDITS OF BLP AND EDIT WARRING! Surely! Piotrus must be immediately banned!
+Except…
+Which of these edits actually constitute “WP:BLP/WP:COI-violating tag-team edit warring”?
+* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Grabowski&diff=prev&oldid=1038362750 This one?] It adds “ published by the [[United States Holocaust Memorial Museum]]”. Oh yeah, that’s a super obvious BLP vio! Not. Was it a revert? Mmm, no. Was it reverted? No. So how in waffly house is that “edit warring”??? Nevermind “tag teaming”??.?
+* Oh, maybe it’s [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Grabowski&diff=prev&oldid=1038362496 this one?] It’s a… minor edit which “removes unnecessary section heading”. Surely a “COI” violation. Yeah right.  Was it a revert? No. Was it reverted? No. So how in ihiphopitty is it “edit warring”??? Nevermind “tag teaming”.
+* That leaves [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Grabowski&diff=prev&oldid=1038351752 this one]. Hey, at least that one isn’t just a minor edit that Levivich is falsely pretending constitutes “BLP vio”. So is it a BLP vio? Of course not. Is it reverting or edit warring? No. Is it tag teaming with anyone? No.
+Levivich’s claims here are so completely false that one wonders if he even looked at the edits he’s referring to before relying on an indefinitely banned user’s word. Btw, several people have repeatedly called out that banned user on WPO for lying and misrepresenting other editors’s edits. They’re actually indef banned for a reason. Not sure why Levivich would want to quote another banned user here, especially in the light of the already present accusations regarding Levivich and another banned user, Icewhiz.
+Since we’re all quoting WPO now, here’s another comment from there, made about Icewhiz and NoCal. Kind of relevant here I think:
+{{tq| One problem with people like Icewhiz (and Nocal + Collier etc, etc) is that they say diffs/evidence shows something, but then you actually have to look at each and every diff/evidence to check that. And far to often it is all a bluff/lie; you simply cannot believe a word they say; everything needs to be checked.}}
+<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 08:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 === Statement by Alanscottwalker ===