Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Statement by François Robere: my greatest blunder (after edit conflict)
Line 186: Line 186:


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

===Statement by El_C===
Agree with pretty much everything [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] says above, including about {{u|nableezy}}'s close being correct.

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


=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
=== Statement by {Non-party} ===

Revision as of 11:22, 22 December 2021

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Warsaw concentration camp   21 December 2021 0/0/0
[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).

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
Motion name Date posted
Historical elections 21 July 2024

Warsaw concentration camp

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Jehochman

Issue: 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?

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. (all above statements copied from WP:COIN)

This is yet another hydra head from EEML, a 2009 arbitration case. This matter has been unresolvable due to severe, persistent behavioral problems. The dispute is causing extreme damage to the encyclopedia, by enabling disinformation and ahistory.

A little flavor of the discussion:

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

I came across this mess at Wikipedia:Closure requests where the closure request has sat, unactioned, for 16 days. Due to the fact that I was one of the people specifically targeted for harassment by EEML, I will not touch it. No other administrator appears willing, or able, to take on this monster, despite there having been at least four long (and heated) discussions. Therefore, I have wrapped it with a bow, and placed it under your Christmas tree (or next to your Festivus pole, etc.). Welcome to the Arbitration Committee!

Thank you, arbitrators. The scope includes the linked threads and associated articles. Once the bad behavior stops, other editors can sort out the content questions. Jehochman Talk 15:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion makes a very interesting point, This is, largely, about a footnote. A footnote. Indeed, just a footnote, yet the linked discussions include more than 50,000 words, and the uninvolved editors' typical reaction is, "Run away!" Jehochman Talk 01:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek thank you for suggesting ArbCom to close the WP:COIN thread by motion. I believe that would address my concerns. The RFCs might resolve more easily once the COI question is decided. Any uninvolved volunteers in good standing can close those RFCs, former arbitrators or not. Jehochman Talk 03:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 reading and tally of the COIN thread indicate that:
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]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

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]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

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]

Statement by Paul Siebert

I would like to comment on EEML. I think I have a right to do that because, as I learned several years after the EEML story had ended, I myself was a potential target of their activity: they were contemplating some joint actions against me, but they concluded their standard strategy would not be effective against me. Nevertheless, I think the reference to EEML is hardly relevant to this case: EEML was a loose group of users from different post-Soviet states, and they were acting in coordination only when they had a common opponent (pro-Russian or pro-Communist users). Some of those users are still acting, sporadically, as a tag-team in Communism related topics, but that is very rare, and, importantly, Piotrus never participates in that. In this concrete case, we are dealing with just few users who are interested in the same topic (Polish history). That is pretty legitimate, and I see no reason to speak about any resurrection of "EEML hydra" in this particular case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: A distinctive feature of EEML was an extensive off-Wiki coordination of ostensibly independent users. By calling someone "EEML-2", you imply involvement of some users in some significant off-Wiki coordination or similar malicious activity. We don't have such evidences, and I doubt we will ever have them. Without evidences, your claim may be considered a personal attack.
Even EEML itself was discovered by accident. We have no reason to rule out a possibility of other mail list groups, which may be currently active, but, since we will hardly get an information about them, we must assume no such coordination exists.
In reality, the main reason that made EEML so dangerous is one fundamental flaw in Wikipedia's approach towards dispute resolution. We implicitly assume that two arguments presented by different users have more weight than the very same arguments presented by a single user. And the same is true collective vs individual actions.
A recent example is this. This AE case lead to a block of one user who made more than one revert during less then 24 hours, and then stopped to edit. Interestingly, although I explicitly pointed out that those two reverts were just a minor part of the edit war, where three ex-EEML members were involved as a "tag-team", this my comment was totally ignored. In my opinion, this attitude of admins provoke users to establish tacit off-Wiki communication to evade totally formal admin's radars.
However, that does not mean that different users who are interested in the same topic cannot edit it concurrently, and it is absolutely unimportant if they were the members of some mailing list 12 years ago. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider's comment GoodDay

Clarifiy: Was this newspaper story written by a banned editor or was the newspaper story's source a banned editor? GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I got my clarification. Indeed the said-piece should be deleted from Wikipedia. Icewhiz (via his continuing socks) has IMHO, zero credibility here. I'll leave it to the rest of you, to decide the next steps. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 21 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

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]

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]

  • 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]

Statement by My very best wishes

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) was legitimate because it was used essentially as an attack page, and I did not see any other cases where the contributors in question might be viewed as involved in COI editing. But the inclusion of this text should be decided in an RfC. That's the way.

If there was anything problematic in the DS ares (as was alleged on WP:COINB), that can be reported to WP:AE, not here.

Therefore, I think the best course of action would be to ignore this request, and just to close two currently active RfCs (linked to by Jehochman). My very best wishes (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

I understand the confusion the OP has about the concurrent threads ultimately leading to the Haaretz article in question. (Btw, the EEML invocation here is really irrelevant. Even though there is some rather concerning behaviour, I think it falls short of ArbCom intervention - I've seen worse; probably it should be dealt with at AN/ANI level).

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 seems to dispute (on the other hand, I resent any more discussions on RSN/NPOVN/other areas, because we already have had one and three are open, and one on RSN AFAIK was closed per WP:TALKCENT). However, there are important questions that have been triggered while discussing this Haaretz source, which ArbCom might be willing to consider:

  • Whether articles published in generally reliable sources (according to WP:RSP) may be tainted (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 the parts where the banned editor is speaking (which solves the question of whether we may source some information to the article which happens to contain the banned editor's opinions but are not cited in-text)
  • Whether a user has a conflict of interest if they are mentioned (by username) in a 3rd-party article published in a generally reliable source.
  • Adopt a uniform definition of the word "hoax" for the purposes of articlespace (and Wikipedia space, where the first debate about the word "hoax" took place, too), i.e. whether a user's intent to deceive is needed or it is enough to show that by all likelihood the information was initially published as a hoax.

I believe ArbCom may take the second question (it is not the content one) as the discussions are dispersed among different threads (even if they concern the same topic), 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 questions mentioned above (all of them if ArbCom declines to take the case and the first and the third ones if ArbCom decides to resolve the conflict of interest question). I would rather that ArbCom considered the case, particularly in light of prior interactions with the now-banned user (which ended up on ArbCom as well) and the possible sockpuppet influence in the threads that some users here allege.

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 that surely will not be the first or the last case.

Amending my statement: because the COIN thread was just closed with a yes-COI result by Nableezy (thank you, though I'd personally prefer a three-editor closure so that it is more accepted in the community), I think that any potential appeal, since we are at it, should be made here because the case is complicated. Of course, any such appeal should happen only after talking to Nableezy and then announcing their will here to challenge the closure and have it reviewed by ArbCom. 10:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@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 best present some evidence of this behaviour before anyone blocks or sanctions anyone. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: See, 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 was the most active on the other side and I don't find their behaviour commendable, either. I admit being one of the more active participators in the three later discussions and opened the RfC on the Warsaw concentration camp talk page because of your challenge, and "them" did not necessarily involve only the "oppose/no/remove" side. However, given my expansion of the article, I think I was probably in the best position to say how good/how prevalent the sources were or how the Trzcińska story evolved (fortunately or not, Dreamcatcher25, the other editor who worked very deeply on the issue on Polish Wikipedia, did not share his thoughts - I would love to hear from him).
There is a point, however, to be made about some sort of irrational obsession with Icewhiz. Yes, he's not good, yes, socking isn't good either. But I mean, folks here tell us not to feed the troll but then stress in bold and underline that they are a globally banned editor for several times in the discussion, and invoke them whenever the occasion comes. I mean, had I indeed been a troll and an evil rubble-rouser, I would be delighted by such behaviour - it wastes legitimate editors' time, it makes butthurt grow and spread exponentially, and I am afforded recognition at the end of the day as the arch-nemesis of Wikipedia. I believe it would be one of the troll's best days ever, dontyathink? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Quote from Szmenderowiecki’s statement - While the amount of energy some of them have spent on removing it is absolutely mind-boggling...[3]

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]

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"

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

Statement by El_C

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]

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).

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

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]
  • Placeholder—will review and comment tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 21 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]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1061554752"