Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:51, 23 December 2021

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Warsaw concentration camp		21 December 2021	3/2/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	18 June 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, eg 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

"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.

Aquillion makes an interesting point, This is, largely, about a footnote. A footnote.Discussion over the four threads I cited runs 50,000 words. The Gish galloping and tag teaming drove away many editors.

Alanscottwalker: Did you know that "Piotrus" appears in 76 different archive pages of WP:AE and "Volunteer Marek" appears in 110?

Primefac named Sandstein, El C, and Seraphimblade, three administrators who are the main patrollers of WP:AE. Of course they appear frequently; they work there! Volunteer Marek has never been an administrator. Piotrus has not been an administrator for 12 years. When he was, I do not remember him patrolling AE. I appear in 55 archives because I patrolled AE. It is a mathematical fallacy to compare statistics for two populations (administrator-patrollers and non-patrollers) that have dissimilar behavior. As an example, active non-patroller SandyGeorgia, appears in 7 archives. Primefac shows up in 6. Piotrus and Volunteer Marek are several sigmas above the mean for appearances at WP:AE by non-patrollers. These statistics suggest a persistent involvement in festering disputes.

El C: AE patrollers deserve great thanks doing a tough job. Let's not burden them with festering disputes. ArbCom, please take this case.

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:

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]

@Dreamy Jazz I'd like to request an extension, given I've been named as a party. Note part of my section is a quotation, collapsed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ( Clerk note: moved from clerk's section)[reply]

@User:Black Kite. Thank you for stating what should be obvious to many others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

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]

Lol. User:Jehochman is trying to add Icewhiz as a party to this request [3] 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 [4]. 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]

@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]

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]

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]

Statement by Paul Siebert

Since Levivich and Jehochman do not make a stress on EELM anymore, this my text is hardly relevant

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]

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]

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]

If somebody would show me what needs to be deleted? I'll delete it. I've rarely been around the topic of concentration camps in Poland, so I certainly have no COI in that area. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 22 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

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]

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

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.

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) 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.

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.

@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]

@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 (not the best behaviour, either), was the most active on the other side. Answering your question, though: I don't know about others, but I know 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.

As 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, he's not 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 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 spread exponentially, and affords me recognition as the arch-nemesis of Wikipedia - just what a troll would want. 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]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Quote Szmenderowiecki’s statement - While the amount of energy some of them have spent on removing it is absolutely mind-boggling...[5]

@ Szmenderowiecki --> Could you please evaluate the amount of energy some of you spent on maintaining it? - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quote 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.-->[6]

@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 -->[7] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman filed this 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? [8]

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).. [9] (Text comparison can be seen here -->[10])

Facts:

Jehochman acknowledges corresponding by e-mail with Icewhiz [11]
Jehochman declares not giving credence to anything Icewhiz says [12]
Jehochman provides info that Haaretz is preparing a new article... book, documenting systemic problems with Wikipedia's Holocaust articles. [13]. When asked about the source of that information Jehochman doesn't give a clear answer [14] and subsequently ceases responding.[15]
Jehochman reveals that all (?) is going to be exposed by the press. [16]

Issues:

Jehochman accused named editors of falsifying history in Eastern Europe for nationalistic ends [17], distorting articles about the Holocaust in Poland [18], damaging the encyclopedia via ahistoricism [19] and organized nationalist manipulation. [20],

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

Summary:

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

(word count 359)

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]

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"

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.[21][22][23][24][25][26] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 should 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]

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]

Statement by Polska jest Najważniejsza

I urge the ArbCom to accept the case. The closer scope can be defined later, but we already know who the main actors would be. It is a case of severe malfunction in the Wikipedia system: blatantly disruptive editors (who are simultaneously damn aggressive and energetic!) post their biased stuff in their fave topic area and obstruct even-minded people from editing or correcting their mistakes. And administrators either refuse to act, issue dozens of warnings that never lead to sanctions against the guilty party (see Fr. Robere's comment above) or even shoot the messenger. That's why standard AE's are essentially meaningless in this case of long-term abuse (nationalist falsification of history to the extent of posting fakes).

Some people expressed fears that it could be the "Case: Holocaust in Poland 2.0". But as my closer inspection of said case showed me, arbs too either did not take the issue seriously enough back then or outright failed. The case lasted and lasted and our authorities seemed to pretty much neglect this case! There was no effective outcome, 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, some say.PjN 20:51, 23 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]

Warsaw concentration camp: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/2/0>

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]
Placeholder—will review and comment tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Still reviewing, and mostly, trying to cut my thoughts on this to a reasonable length before posting them. I hope they will be helpful when I do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 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]
@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]
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]

@@ Line 322: / Line 322: @@
 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. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * {{u|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. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
+=== Statement by Polska jest Najważniejsza ===
+I urge the ArbCom to accept the case. The closer scope can be defined later, but we already know who the main actors would be. It is a case of severe malfunction in the Wikipedia system: blatantly disruptive editors (who are simultaneously damn aggressive and energetic!) post their biased stuff in their fave topic area and obstruct even-minded people from editing or correcting their mistakes. And administrators either refuse to act, issue dozens of warnings that '''never''' lead to sanctions against the guilty party (see Fr. Robere's comment above) or even shoot the messenger. That's why standard AE's are essentially meaningless in this case of long-term abuse (nationalist falsification of history to the extent of posting fakes).
+Some people expressed fears that it could be the "Case: Holocaust in Poland 2.0". But as my closer inspection of said case showed me, arbs too either did not take the issue seriously enough back then or outright failed. The case lasted and lasted and our authorities seemed to pretty much neglect this case! There was no effective outcome, 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, some say.[[User:Polska jest Najważniejsza|PjN]] 20:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 === Statement by {Non-party} ===