WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Warsaw concentration camp	Motions	21 December 2021	5/4/0
Legitimacy about the imposition of never approved rules		9 January 2022	0/6/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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. 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

Please consider this RFC, started Jan 2, 2021 (one year ago, and appears stalled with no closure): Talk:Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance#RfC: Legal analysis section.

Tag team stalling of consensus by VM [1]reply, GCB [2], MVBW [3], and Piotrus [4] (subtle) reply.
Other editors in the discussion support (5-1) the proposal by Buidhe [5].
Relevant principles from past cases covering this topic area:

This is a microcosm of what happens across many article talk pages in the topic area. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who else is concerned about this?

Ymblanter said, I got wiki-threats of the type "if you do not unblock immediately you will be taken to ArbCom to have you admin flag removed", as a result I had a medical emergency (of which I was recovering for a week) and decided that I do not care about the block if it has such consequences, so I have lifted it myself.[6]
Only in death said, Consider yourself notified.[7]
ANI thread: Ymblanter's blocks of Volunteer Marek and GCB :
1. Ymblanter said Well, I got enough baid faith towards myself today, and, in addition, OID was very clear for many years that they want my tools removed does not matter what, but I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts.
2. Only in death said Yes I want your tools removed. You lack sufficient knowledge to use them properly and it results in abuse.
3. Ymblanter said, Ok, I am too old for this. I completely disagree with the unblock, but I do not want to get to a hospital again. I will unblock. Next time, anybody starts talking about lack of admin, lack of gut, inability to look into difficult cases, remember this case, please. If I am still alive, I will be around to remind you.
4. Piotrus said, Ymblanter, if you can, please just apologize to the relevant parties") would be the best solution. There is no need for any community actions or sanctions if one acknowledges their mistake and apologizes, to be human is to err. What does worries me, however, is that the comments I've seen from Ymblanter suggests that they don't view their actions as wrong.
Only in death eventually said this, which I won't quote. And there was no sanction.

Please read the whole thread, and also Ealdgyth's comments. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to all editors for my improper comments on this page. I also apologize for allowing Icewhiz to deceive me for his purpose of inflicting harm on other editors. I will be much more careful in both regards going forward. Thank you for your kind understanding. Jehochman ^Talk 03:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox I did not “willingly let [myself] be led around by the nose by a serial harasser.” The guy emailed me out of the blue after I filed this arb request, not before. I mentioned his email on this page, which was a mistake, and that’s the extent of it. I should have emailed the Committee about my concerns instead of posting them, and that’s what I will do in the future. You seem to be jumping to all sorts of conclusions. After Icewhiz wrote to me, I told him to cut the crap and stay away from Wikipedia. I’m not collaborating with him. I don’t edit in this area and previously had little awareness of him and his exploits at RfA. (See CaptainEek’s remarks, a good summary). As I said originally, I came upon the COIN thread while patrolling Wikipedia:Closure requests. Nobody directed me to it. Every discussion in this topic turns into a hot mess like that COIN thread. You all ought to figure out why that keeps happening and try to stop it. I hope that somebody better than me files a proper case request real soon. Jehochman ^Talk 08:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi I think you’re jumping to a conclusion. I am out because I became upset. (Good advice: don’t edit when angry.) Nobody is obligated to participate here and I left a message for people to email me should they need me. I also emailed ArbCom so I’m surprised nobody told you when your term started. I have returned briefly to apologize because I wanted to. Now I will leave again. Please email if you have further concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators, thank you for the feedback. I am taking all of your advice onboard, and will continue my break to contemplate what has happened and consider my future involvement. Whatever happens, I will do my best not to disappoint you further. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not very important

El C, Barkeep49, and Guerillero: perhaps these three AE threads might help illustrate the issue you have raised:

I think these may show why people are at wits end. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following principles from WP:EEML may help to analyze the behavior within those threads:

I hope this helps. Maybe some editors better than me can harvest this information and use it to form a proper case, maybe by using the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Opening_of_arbitration_cases. Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right on, Wugapodes![8] A few littles notes, if I may, since what you post here could affect me in real life, so I'd like to correct the record:

I filed this request 100% on my own. Icewhiz only wrote to me after my filing. My error was quoting a bit of what he said, rather than emailing it to the Committee. Sorry again for my indiscretion.
If my arguments sound like some of Icewhiz's arguments, that isn't because we're colluding. We're aren't. He and I might just see the same wiki content. You can tell us apart because he's evil, and I'm not.
When this case is done, please give credit where credit is due. I recognized a terrible problem and brought it to your attention.
I accept my admonishment for incivility and indiscretion. Please understand, I am not that important. This case should be about our articles and our readers.

Thank you all for sticking with this. I know it's been a grind. Jehochman ^Talk 22:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom, I chose this moment to resign so that you won’t waste any more of your time on me. I’m not important. GizzyCatBella asks a great question,[9] what can we do about long term abuse? WMF is working on new methods of identification to make Checkuser more effective at stopping abuse. meta:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation#IP_Masking_Implementation_Approaches_(FAQ) We also need to ask them to secure inactive accounts better to prevent account takeover attacks. Recently editors have reported credential stuffing attacks. Somebody seems to be taking over accounts and misusing them. Jehochman ^Talk 05:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, I recognize that you are both extremely intelligent and capable editors. Might you consider rotating out of this topic area and working on some different things? VM seems to know a lot about statistics, and probably math too. Our articles on those topics have considerable room for improvement. Changing topics is something that I try to do, and I find it refreshing. If you simply unwatch these difficult H-P articles, other editors will fill the void. Often, fresh eyes can help an article improve further, and you might enjoy not having to deal with IW socks so frequently. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

"On Oct. 4, 2019, Omer Benjakob of Haaretz, Israel's paper of record, published a story about Wikipedia's coverage of Poland and the Holocaust, including what Benjakob called Wikipedia's longest-running hoax, related to content at the article "Warsaw concentration camp": [10]. 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.[11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Newyorkbrad: your latest criticism is a Catch 22. But for the artificial word limit, my statement would not be morphing so much; it would just expand. After a request is filed, new information comes out. That's natural. We have an Evidence phase when my evidence will be posted, assuming there are no absurd evidence limits this time.[12] (I don't publish draft expert reports in real life, and I won't do it here either.) For the moment, I have identified a problem, a venue, and some of the key parties. I will not accuse anyone of wrongdoing until the evidence has been collected and analyzed. (1) I would be quite happy if a review by ArbCom revealed that problems identified by the press have largely been resolved and that there are no significant problems with present editors in the area. (2) I would also be quite happy if ArbCom took responsibility for applying sanctions to vested contributors so that individual admins patrolling AE, such as El C, would not be subject to such intense pressure and burnout,[13][14][15] in one case resulting in "The greatest blunder of my Wikipedia career bar none."[16] (3) I think ArbCom remains responsible to investigate why some of our top contributors, such as Ealdgyth still avoid editing articles about The Holocaust in Poland.[17] If we are told that's a problem, we should be curious to find out how the problem evolved and what should be done to fix it. (4) Finally, I think ArbCom needs to consider why three women were pushed away from editing the area: Ealdgyth, Buidhe, and SlimVirgin.[18] We have a known gender gap, and it is strange that most of the women editing this topic have been pushed away. Correlation does not imply causation, but it does suggest investigation.

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

Statement by Piotrus

Original statement

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) represent 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.

Cf. quote above. 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]

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

@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]

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

Since I was just pinged by Levivich in [19], a few thoughts. 1) No diffs again, just a vague "look at everything". 2) COIN close by Nableezy explicitly states that "I dont find any consensus that there is COI with Grabowski". 3) VM's analysis is sound but misses a few points. 4) Perhaps Levivich means to say "Thank you Piotrus for stepping in and pointing out that the book has a dedicated article where the discussion of its reception should take place", as after my edit pointing that out the article (and talk discussion) have stabilized; the current version has been stable for months and not subject to any criticism. IMHO the only misbehavior in that short incident was an attempt by some editors to chase the others away using bogus claims of COI. 5) Said talk discussion included a comment by SPA XN Kowalczyk "Enemies of Grabowski with conflict of interest editing this page ". If anyone wants to argue that was not Icewhiz I have a bridge to sell you. IMHO it is obvious that one of Icewhiz's tactics is trying to discredit his enemies using sympathetic off-wiki media (hence the entire WP:HARASSMENT angle). 6) Diffless accusations of misconduct which often repeat Icewhiz's claims are tiresome and I've explicitly asked Levivich to stop before. 7) All of this reminds me of the previous "see terrible things happening b/c of Polish nationalists" general diff-less comment posted in this case request a few days ago, the one referring Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gestapo–NKVD conferences. Checking up on it we see another sad victory for the evil EEML gang, with the poor OP blocked as a sock and the AfD closed as "speedy keep. A mixture of a snow keep and DENY". Once again I want to point out that concepts such as WP:DENY as well as WP:ASPERSIONS exist for a reason. A motion to that effect wouldn't be amiss, dear Arbitrators. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My q/r to Barkeep49, becoming less relevant with time

@Barkeep49:
1. re " The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that Jehochman has since apologized for these comments." While this is correct regarding his comments towards Nableezy, could you point me to an apology towards anyone else, in particular, his reflection and apology for (quoting from your motion): "[J.] proxied for a globally banned harasser by posting on their behalf a denial of harassment and unsupported claims of collusion among editors in this topic area "?
2. regarding Molobo, I wager a guess he suffered a mental breakdown. While a preventative block for cooldown, or a courtesy long-term block which he seems to have requested might be warranted, it seems to me that he is the victim here, perhaps the biggest one (since some other editors may be stressed or annoyed, but nobody seems to be suffering to the point of posting comments like "STOP HARASSING ME. YOU RUINED MY LIFE.LEAVE ME AND MY FAMILY ALONE. DELETE MY ACCOUNT. LEAVE ME ALONE." I am also very concerned about the part where he mentions his family. There is only one person of interest here who has been known to target families of other editors - and also to try to ruin their life by getting them fired and like. While we may never know exactly what happened, IF Molobo became a recent target of Icewhiz's off-wiki harassment which culminated in his outburst, to sum up his retirement with an ArbCom warning against casting aspersions and a comment calling his behavior cruel might not be... how to say it... particularly nice. ArbCom's job isn't to be nice, yes, but aren't we the ones being unnecessarily cruel here?
3. I'll certainly reread Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, but I'd appreciate the guidance, on-wiki or privately by email, to understand better where I erred to need such a serious reminder. I don't recall anyone complaining about me bludgeoning anything there (or here, for that matter), hence my puzzlement. I was named a party in the COIN thread, and my quick count shows that I made just 5 posts in that discussion. I did not reply to most comments. Many other editors were much more active, for example, the OP, Levivich, made over 15 posts there. François Robere made aboout 8. I am not trying to say "they bludgeoned more" (or at all), but I'd appreciate an explanation and guidance on how come my 5 posts there seem more bludegeon-ish, so I can reflect on my style of posting and work on improving it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be three repeated concerns:

that there are content issues in the topic area. Errr. Sure there are. So what? Content issues exist and will be addressed by editors in time, nothing to see here, move along. Unless one gives credence to Icewhiz's clickbait-claims that there is an organized conspiracy, presumably by "state-sponsored Polish nationalists", to propagate hoaxes or otherwise skew the articles. No evidence for this has been presented, and I fear that each time someone mentions that this topic area has non-conduct problems in the form of above-average bias (pro-Polish nationalistic, I guess?) we are just feeding him and creating ripples such as decreasing AGF towards editors in this TA. Seriously, folks: we have no diffs, no evidence, and no off-wiki academic or journalistic confirmation of anything here, outside the 2019 Haaretz piece which made a vague assertion that the journalist has "verified some Icewhiz's claims" but failed to clarify which claims, or how were they verified (see also my letter to the editor pointing out various problems with the article). In the two years since, if there was any substance to these claims, we would have been long past EEML2 or whatever. The only conclusion remaining is that this was just part of Icewhiz's campaign of harassment, slinging mud at his enemies. We need to stop repeating it, as it is this very repetition that continues to erode AGF and contributes to the unpleasant feeling some folks have regarding this TA ("I hear this TA is full of socks fighting Polish nationalists, pass").
- Sidenote: IIRC ArbCom is not to rule on content, and WP:APLRS is as much as can be done here. Even that toe-dipping into the content area was misguided and it created a chilling effect that was primarily exploited by... Icewhiz, yes, when his sock Bob the Snob gutted an article he disliked (Witold Pilecki) and it took several months (plus blocking of that sock and revising APLRS to be less prone to weaponizing) before the damage was repaired, as editors feared - I know I did - that another sock is just waiting to pounce to report them to AE for restoring some borderline source and hoping that an admin agrees with them). Let's think about the damage done by ALPRS v1 and the zero evidence that ALPRS v2 has done anything before doing more legislating on content, please.
that socking (mostly by Icewhiz, with some from NoCal, Yanniv, and possibly others) is driving people away through the war of attrition (need we look further than the recent meltdown of MyMoloboaccount?). But what can ArbCom do about it? We have WP:APL50030 and nobody has suggested anything else that can be done. If the admins/CU/Arbitrators feel overworked/burned out, the solution is to let others help. However, as someone who has submitted extensive on- and off-wiki evidence regarding Icewhiz socks, I also feel I got next to zero feedback if this evidence was of any use. Sending evidence of socking or such to ArbCom feels like dealing with the black hole - very little feedback comes back. Please tell us, the regular editors familiar with this TA, if our feedback is welcome or if we are wasting your time with our amateurish analysis. Crafting a guide on how to submit evidence etc. might be a good idea. I do realize that such tools can also teach sock masters how to refine their game, but I think most sock masters are already quite experienced, and a guide on how to properly format SPI report and what types of behavioral evidence is useful and what is pointless, maybe with some examples on good vs bad reports, would be very helpful.
finally, the claim that reaction to socking is driving people away. While blaming the victim is not cool, I do agree that it takes two to tango. Yet I do not recall a single diff presented to back this up, as in "I left this TA because of this diff accusing me of being a sock". However, we do see people accusing others of proxying, meatpuppeting, and tag-teaming. A bit of this is visible in the motions on VolunteerMarek and Levivich. But yes, this IS a SERIOUS problem, related to the first issue, and overall connected to the BATTLEGROUND/AGF issues, all fuelled by the very real problems of extreme socking. There is plenty of smoke, and fire, and splinters flying around. We cannot stop the socking, but I think there is a potential for a motion, not singling out any editor (yet) but one that clearly states that for this TA, there is a zero-tolerance policy for WP:ASPERSIONS. Nobody should accuse anyone else of being someone's proxy, meatpuppet, sock, or tag-team member, and dredge ancient wiki history that poisons the well, outside reports to AE or SPI (although I'd reserve an exception for tagging posts by new editors with {{Single-purpose account}}/{{Afdnewuser}}, and I also propose to create a new template that can be used to indicate that an account does not meet 500/30).

Bottom line, ArbCom cannot fix the content, and we cannot make people inwardly assume good faith - but we can at least make them avoid outwardly assuming bad faith and making personal attacks in the discussion, something that I feel significantly contributes to the perception of this TA as toxic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: Seriously... "Please consider this RFC, started Jan 2, 2022 while this request was pending". You are off by a YEAR, that RfC is from Jan 2, 2021. And this is not the first time you bring some dubious "evidence" here: two weeks ago you tried to sound alarm bells for the ongoing at that time AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gestapo–NKVD conferences, which was removed form your "evidence" a day later, a few hours after it was discovered the OP of it was another sock... (that AfD was subsequently closed as speedy keep, with the only dissenting vote being Iron Thain, an account you yourself identified, in the previous diff, as "a possible Icewhiz sock" but took no action - hmmm, an SPI would be nice before this becomes too stale, folks)... Considering that this ArbCom case has so far not shown you in the most favorable light, isn't this the case for WP:DROPTHESTICK re EEML? On that note ping @CaptainEek:, I hope this is the right time to invoke this essay, although it does seem to be petty specific, I now see better why you linked to it in the first place back then. Should I be linking to WP:BLUDGEON instead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Original statement

frustration

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

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

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

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

Lol. User:Jehochman is trying to add Icewhiz as a party to this request [20] 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]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gunter888 @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 [21]. Hell, one of his socks almost sneaked through RfA just a few months ago! But sure... "WMF is not infallible". (Bang head against table)

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

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

weird AE stats stuff

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

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

and another sock just blocked

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

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

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

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

User:Beeblebrox - I don’t know if the TA is “unpleasant” to outsiders. To the extent that is true it surely has to do with the continuous, unending influx of socks (from Icewhiz and friends - one *just* got blocked [22]) into this TA. The fact that the main tactic of all of these is to start fights in the hope that those who deal with them will “catch” a sanction does indeed make for a bad editing environment. But how exactly would an ArbCom case help with that? You can’t arbitrate on throw away sock accounts.

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

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

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

Wait, did somebody seriously say awhile back “nah, this won’t turn into a circus”. Welp, I’m case there is any doubt here you go [23] [24]. We have an admin accusing a long standing editor of “supporting violence against Jews” … in a request that has nothing to do with Israel-Palestine topics. Hey, maybe the scope of the proposed case should be included to cover EVERY controversial area on Wikipedia! You know, because some stale COIN discussion wasn’t closed for a couple weeks. Makes perfect sense.

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

@User:El_C re: comments on WPO [25] A teacher requires that his students don’t use “naughty words” in his classroom. He then learns that one of his pupils used one of those “naughty words” at home with his parents (and parents were cool with that). The teacher then goes running to the school principal “Mr. Principal! Mr. Principal! Marek uses naughty words at home!” Volunteer Marek 16:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Levivich, relying on another indef banned [26] user posting on Wikipediocracy, mentions Piotrus’ article in Gazeta Wyborcza, then says Look at the 2021 history of Jan Grabowski (…) and tell me you don't see WP:BLP/WP:COI-violating tag-team edit warring. So again. No diffs. Just WP:ASPERSIONS and a general vague link to the article’s history. Ok. Fine. Let’s look at “2021 history of Jan Grabowski” and the edits by Piotrus. There’s … THREE of them. OH MY GOD THREE EDITS OF BLP AND EDIT WARRING! Surely! Piotrus must be immediately banned!

Except…

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

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

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

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

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

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

The claim that this is a toxic topic area has been brought up a few times. And that admins at WP:AE are overwhelmed, or not doing their job or something. OTOH, several users (User:My very best wishes most recently [27]) have said the opposite. So I went and did an analysis of ALL the WP:AE requests from last year. The data is here if you want to look. I put a graph of the results here (not sure if it's cool to post images to Case Requests). So...

In 2021 there were approx. 181 requests filed at WP:AE. The overall winner for "most contentious topic area" was... it was very close between Israel-Palestine and American Politics, with both around 37 requests each. India-Pakistan cases third with 27, Gender & Sexuality with 13 and Armenia & Azerbaijan with 10.

There were only 3 cases filed in THIS topic area. Three. You have to go back all the way June 21 to find one [28]. And even that one was an appeal of an Iban by... User:Astral Leap who was shortly thereafter blocked as a sockpuppet of Icewhiz.

Aside from the appeal, the 2 other Poland related cases were both closed as "no action" back in April and February [29] [30]. One of them was filed against me and it was closed with a warning against the other person, the filer.

3 reports out of 186 is 1.6% of reports. Only Motorsports (I didn't even know that was under DS!) and Pseudoscience have had fewer cases.

Of course # of WP:AE cases is an imperfect measure of how contentious this area is (and indeed, as User:Opabinia regalis says, the discussions in this TA are characterized by a lot of back-and-forth bickering). However, as User:Alanscottwalker alludes to, in this case the answer is to use WP:AE more. That's what it's there for. Nobody posting here (with one exception) has actually filed a WP:AE request.

I can send spread sheet of data to anyone who wants it. Volunteer Marek 05:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: here's the graph for the number of WP:AE request in 2020 by topic area [31]. In 2020 there were indeed a couple more cases in this topic area. 7 rather than 3. Still that was 7 out of 148 (4.7%). Of these 7, 1 was a topic ban appeal, 2 were filed by User:Francois Robere, 1 was filed by Mymoloboaccount against account that was later blocked for sock puppetry [32], 2 closed with no action (one very minor) and 1, against me, closed with no action and suggestion that the filer be check-user'd.

So there wasn't much action at WP:AE in 2020 either. Volunteer Marek 08:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(@User:Izno - there were two in 2020 on GCB that were back-to-back and were decided together so I counted them as 1. I think that's the only difference in our numbers?) Volunteer Marek 09:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the editors who tried to re-add the KL Warsaw entry to the List of Hoaxes page. I'm pulling all this straight from Levivich/KL that he himself was so kind to supply us with:

Icewhiz: [33] [34] (obviously)
An IP account, three days after Icewhiz got blocked: [35]
An account with 10 edits [36] [37] [38] [39] using trollish edit summaries such as "magnificent sources"
An account shortly blocked as a sock [40]
Another IP account with zero other edits starts a talk page discussion [41]
Another account shortly blocked as a sock [42]
Yet another account shortly blocked as a sock [43]
And of course Levivich himself [44] [45] [46]

There was also one other editor who restored it once, Gilidir but didn't object when their edit was undone.

So the list is: Icewhiz, IP account, brand new SPA account, confirmed sock, IP account, confirmed sock, confirmed sock, Levivich.

The discussion on talk also had additional appearances by this IP which was blocked for vandalism and harassment and this SPA account (judge for yourself, note the obviously fake "bad English")

This is what Levivich is referring to when he claims "consensus". This is this "wide variety of editors -- some Icewhiz socks, but mostly not" that Levivich claims opposed the removal of the entry in the List of Hoaxes articles: Icewhiz, IP account, brand new SPA account, confirmed sock, IP account, confirmed sock, confirmed sock and Levivich.

I think this speaks for itself. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I missed K.e.coffman jumping in there. Let me update the list of accounts edit warring to restore Icewhiz's edits on the List of Hoaxes aritcle that comprise this set of "wide variety of editors":

Icewhiz, IP account, brand new SPA account, confirmed sock, IP account, confirmed sock, confirmed sock, Levivich, K.e.coffman.

Mmmmhm. Volunteer Marek 21:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the efficacy of WP:AE. A claim has been made that "editors have given up on AE". This claim, like several other ones here, has been made without any evidence, diffs, or any kind of support. I've just spent a lot of time looking back at WP:AE requests going back to 2017 (in detail, and back to 2011 in a bit less detail). I posted links at User:Izno's talk page: [47]. Here are links to graphs: [48] [49]. I'll be happy to send the underlying data upon request.

Here's the rundown:

In 2018 there were 14 Poland related requests. 10 in 2019. 9 in 2020. 3 in 2021. Typical number of ALL WP:AE requests per year is somewhere between 150 and 211.
The drop in request from 2018/2019 to 2020 is pretty much all due to Icewhiz getting banned. In fact, a similar drop occurred in the Israel-Palestine area, which went from 62 (!!!) in 2018 to "only" 37 in 2021.
The drop in requests from 2020 to 2021 is due to two factors: 1) Francois Robere getting IBAN'd with GizzyCatBella, which prevented the two of them from filing requests on each other and 2) the 500/30 restriction preventing brand new accounts (including some socks) from filing reports.
Going by 2021, it very much looks like the topic area is returning to it's "pre-Icewhiz" level of 0 to 3 reports per year (that's the typical # of requests between 2012 and 2017)

The above very strongly suggests that WP:AE, DS and the 500/30 restrictions are working. The current controversy is just an "echo" of previous disputes (indeed, it's basically an attempt to re-litigate several prior discussions, all of which have been independently closed already) and it is my sincere hope that it is the last "echo".

Regarding the idea that "editors have given up on AE" - it's hard to see WHO exactly these editors are suppose to be or even if they exist at all. Here is a complete list of editors who have filed WP:AE requests "post-Icewhiz" (after his block in October 2019, pre Icewhiz is very similar until you go all the way back to 2012 or so + Icewhiz of course). As you can see, once you remove socks and brand new SPA accounts it's a pretty short list (# in parentheses indicates # of requests):

2019: JolantaAJ (1) (blocked as sock puppet) [50], Francois Robere (1) (rest of 2019 AE requests were before Icewhiz was banned)

2020:Francois Robere (1), Notrium (2) (Notrium and FR interaction banned with GCB as a result of these reports), Mymoloboaccount (2), Astral Leap (1) (later blocked as sock puppet of Icewhiz [51]) and GizzyCatBella (2) (both requests were appeals), 007Леони́д (1) (brand new account, closed with recommendation to CU the filer)

2021: Astral Leap (1) (later blocked as sock puppet of Icewhiz), GizzyCatBella (1) (FR's violation of IBAN - no action), Buidhe (1) (no action as spurious, filer warned)

So we have 3 reports by blocked sock puppets or brand new accounts, 2 reports by Mymoloboaccount (I guess it's unclear if they have left Wikipedia but I'm guessing they won't be filing any WP:AE requests anytime soon), 2 reports by Notrium who got IBAN'd as a result and can't really file anymore, 1 report by Buidhe which was closed as no action and warning, 3 reports by GCB two of which were appeals (granted) and 2 reports by Francois Robere who also got IBAN'd as a result.

This very short list pretty clearly shows why the number of WP:AE requests has gone down and it has nothing to do with anyone getting "discouraged" with WP:AE. I think some people are confusing “WP:AE didn’t do everything I want!” with “WP:AE isn’t working”. Again, it actually looks like WP:AE was working exactly like it was suppose to, by reducing the battleground atmosphere in this topic area. Volunteer Marek 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Original statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Paul Siebert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outsider's comment GoodDay

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

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

Has the supposed PoV information & links, been removed from the article(s)-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still haven't been told yet, who is pushing misinformation or trying to push misinformation on said-articles. Somebody please, give names. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biruitorul

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

Statement by Levivich

Original statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI I'm ~24hrs away from posting the diffs of disruption relating to the Warsaw concentration camp article that led up to the COIN, so there'll be a second example article in addition to User:Ealdgyth/Holocaust in occupied Poland arb com evidence. Levivich 22:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Levivich/KL Warsaw and User:Levivich/KL Warsaw related pages
- Those looking for diffs of recent disruption should jump to the 2021 sections of the pages; note, though, that to understand the 2021 edits, one must read the 2019 edits, and to understand the 2019 edits, one must understand the history of the article (e.g., whether it was an innocent mistake or a hoax or something in between)
- I started putting this together after the COIN thread but before this case request was filed, because I wanted to definitively show how the false information got into the article; it also shows disruptive editing; it also shows why it's very, very difficult to diff out NPOV issues in this topic area: the changes are subtle but meaningful
- I could really use some crowdsourced help with this page, particularly in checking for accuracy/errors, adding any diffs I might have missed, and if someone has a better idea of the formatting... please feel free to edit it directly.
- This is just the history of one NPOV dispute at one article, albeit lasting for 17 years (2004-2021)... there are many more pages... Levivich 03:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Grabowski is one of the historians quoted in the Haaretz article. [52] is an article (in Polish) by Grabowski, in which he writes "This is how the technique of falsifying Polish history in Wikipedia works." (Tak działa technika fałszowania polskiej historii w Wikipedii.) [53] is a response article by User:Piotrus, in which he writes "There is no conspiracy of Polish nationalists falsifying history in Wikipedia, no matter how attractive such a thesis may sound." (Nie istnieje żaden spisek polskich nacjonalistów fałszujących historię w Wikipedii, niezależnie od tego, jak atrakcyjnie taka teza może brzmieć.) Look at the 2021 history of Jan Grabowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and tell me you don't see WP:BLP/WP:COI-violating tag-team edit warring, just like what was pointed out in the COIN thread, by the same editors (all of whom have been previously tbanned, some multiple times). Note the entire history of that article going back to 2018: lots of familiar names. Note it was discussed at WP:APL. Still going on in 2021. (h/t Sashi via WO) Levivich 06:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note what E-960 says about whether the main victims of Nazi occupation were Jews or non-Jewish Poles. This issue is what this whole thing is actually about. Levivich 14:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity to EEML isn't "off-wiki coordination," it's POV-pushing. The diffs of POV-pushing are in my OP in the COIN. And in the Haaretz article. Levivich 16:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Truthfully, no, it can't really be summarized easily; if it could, I would have posted at AE or ANI by now. (My COIN posting was an attempt to post a small slice of this.) This is why an arbcom case is needed to get to the truth of the matter. Here's my attempt to summarize what matters to this case request (and requesting whatever word extension I need at this point):
- 2004-2019 edits shows the false information being "corrected" and "uncorrected" multiple times; incorrect info was added even when contradicting sources were already in the article (from prior "correcting" attempts).
- In 2019 Christian Davies publishes his piece (quoted at the top of User:Levivich/KL Warsaw) and K.e.coffman corrects the article (she wasn't the first, but hers stuck). After that, Icewhiz makes some more changes, and then WP:APL starts and you know the rest
- Multiple editors added content to Warsaw concentration camp in 2019 about the "hoax" (it wasn't just Icewhiz), sourced to multiple sources (it wasn't just Benjakob's 2019 article in Haaretz ... in fact there were even multiple Haaretz articles by multiple authors)... but you'll see in the 2019 section of User:Levivich/KL Warsaw and the 2019 sections of User:Levivich/KL Warsaw related pages, a concerted effort to remove all the content, or to significantly water it down, mostly by Piotrus but also others. Piotrus in 2019 is pushing back against multiple editors (some Icewhiz socks but mostly established editors) across multiple articles. And it's not just content added by Icewhiz or socks or new users that's being removed, it's not just content sourced to Benjakob's article, it's any and all content about this issue, whatever the source.
- Multiple talk page discussions are had in 2019 concurrent with this editing. Eventually consensus is that the content stays in a "consensus" version at all the affected pages, which remains stable from around Oct 2019 until around August 2021.
- If you look at the 2021 sections of User:Levivich/KL Warsaw and User:Levivich/KL Warsaw related pages, you'll see that in August 2021, Volunteer Marek starts trying to remove the content about the "hoax" from all the related pages, starting on 2 Aug at WP:List of Wikipedia hoaxes -- picking up where Piotrus left off in 2019. An edit war ensues across these related pages. Piotrus and VM are joined by others (notably, GizzyCatBella), and again, they're pushing against a wide variety of editors -- some Icewhiz socks, but mostly not. It's the 2019 edit wars all over again in 2021.
- GCB and VM were blocked by Ymblanter for edit warring in August; ~~it was overturned at ANI~~ (links/diffs at User:Levivich/KL Warsaw related pages#2021_at_WP:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia)
- This multi-page edit warring picks up again in November leading up to the COIN (although the issue of Piotrus's COI was raised in 2019, and there was a COIN in 2019 that I think was started by an Icewhiz sock), the pages get full protected, and then we've moved on to the bludgeoning/talk page issues (not diff'd, but the talk page threads are all linked in there, and in my COIN filing I included some counts of how many times users posted to these "related pages" discussions) into December, leading to this case request.
- So the pattern is: edit war; when consensus wins, come back later and try to remove it again, edit warring if necessary; when there are talk page discussions, bludgeon them; accuse anyone disagreeing with you of proxying for Icewhiz (this was the battlecry in 2019 and 2021); rinse, repeat.
- There is so much going on in this topic area that I'm at a loss about which part(s) exactly arbcom cares about. I hope this was helpful? Levivich 04:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons it takes 400 diffs is because otherwise you get a real skewed presentation of the evidence. In VM's latest post on this page, he looks at the history ONLY of WP:List of Wikipedia hoaxes (and without mentioning Special:Diff/1054369231 by K.e.coffman) to claim that it's all Icewhiz and socks, while not including the history of the other pages that I've diff'd, such as Warsaw concentration camp (WCC) and Reliability of Wikipedia (see the 2019 and 2021 sectiosn of User:Levivich/KL Warsaw and User:Levivich/KL Warsaw related pages). If you also look at those pages, you see that the Haaretz article was added by Babel fish} Special:Diff/919549707 and the content was added by Banana Republic Special:Diff/920952970, François Robere Special:Diff/921013241/Special:Diff/921013778 and Winged Blades of Godric Special:Diff/921054428, and edited by Starship.paint Special:Diff/921079309/921138692, ZScarpia Special:Diff/921407590, Gdarin Special:Diff/921409062, 3family6 Special:Diff/922485019, Lembit Staan Special:Diff/924600273, Ermenrich Special:Diff/921601188... and then stayed stable after all those edits from 2019-2021 (except for these edits by Buidhe Special:Diff/960209009/963018039), but VM didn't care when he removed it again in 2021 Special:Diff/1056981702, and when it was restored by Starship.paint Special:Diff/1057224554, Slatersteven Special:Diff/1037249021... none of which mattered when it was removed by GizzyCatBella Special:Diff/1053527058 with the edit summary "Removed note (source) is not only improper to use due to the circumstances surrounding its creation but also, promotes the narrative of banned Wikipedian". (These aren't all the edits by these editors, aren't in chrono order, and this is in addition to the editors VM listed.) So as you can see, when VM/GCB/Piotrus removed the content in 2021, they were removing content that was worked on by over a dozen editors in good standing. Literally, more good-faith editors than socks. "It was all Icewhiz!" is plainly not true, the diffs prove it, but you can't rely on some cherrypicked selection, you gotta see the whole picture. Levivich 21:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: When I posted diffs, I also posted diffs that included my own edit warring, as you've noticed. Why? Because I'm stupid? No, because I'm transparent. I believe in transparency. I don't think it vindicates me, I think it simply gives everyone else the facts, so they can see them and make up their own minds. I encourage you to follow my lead. Take what you just posted here and run it again, but instead of just picking one page (the one that makes you look good), do it for all the relevant pages, count up the editors (all the editors), and then answer a simple question: when you removed the disputed content, were you reverting mostly good-faith editors, or mostly socks/new accounts/icewhiz? Are you capable of presenting the facts without bias, without regard to whether it helps or hurts you? Levivich 22:26, 6 January 2022 (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]

I would like to encourage editors and administrators to give attentive reading to statements, of 30 December 2021, especially by Darwinek and E-960. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The present request, gratuitously submitted by administrator Jehochman, to open an ArbCom case, is a tempest in a teapot. It was precipitated by complaints made by a banned ex-Wikipedian, Icewhiz, to Omer Benjakob, a Haaretz journalist, alleging a conspiracy by some Wikipedians to distort the history of the Holocaust in World War II German-occupied Poland.

Some Wikipedia editors subsequently removed, from the Wikipedia "Warsaw concentration camp" article, a reference to the 4 October 2019 Haaretz article, which had mischaracterized an erroneous hypothesis, published in 2002 by Maria Trzcińska, as a "hoax". Her hypothesis had already been described in "Warsaw concentration camp", with academic sources provided, as erroneous. There was no need to refer in "Warsaw concentration camp" to the misleading Haaretz article.

Removal of the Haaretz reference appears to have precipitated the present ArbCom-case request.

Administrator Jehochman seems to have now acknowledged his error in submitting the present request for an ArbCom case. If this were a civil-law proceeding, the original request for an ArbCom case should have been dismissed, and consideration might have been given to whether sanctions should be sought against those who have thus inflicted distress and waste of time on the presently indicted Wikipedians and on the general Wikipedia community.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

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

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

already handled via closure of COIN thread

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

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

Should editors remove content that mentions them from Wikipedia articles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by My very best wishes

Original statement

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

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

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

Comment to last comment by Jehochman [54]. The misinformation/hoax/error was fixed on the page several years ago, and no one suggested to re-include it back. Was any new, more recent misinformation included to any pages by any of ~10 participants mentioned by Jehochman? I do not see any diffs about that. So why the case? My very best wishes (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While commenting before I did not know that Icewhiz recently applied for adminship and nearly succeeded: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Eostrix. This is a unique case when someone used sockpuppet accounts to make a mockery of the entire community. Now I understand better Piotrus and VM. I think that had nothing to do with COI. Apparently, they strongly dislike Icewhiz and wanted that the alleged "hoax" ("death camp controversy") unduly advertised by Icewhiz would be removed from WP pages (but I am sure they will stay away of this now). Therefore, I also agree with those arbitrators who say that the case as originally framed by Jehochman should be declined. If there is any actual wrongdoing by any users, this should be first reported to AE with supporting diffs. And the complaint (if any) should not be related to Icewhiz. This case as framed by Jehochman is all about Icewhiz. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were numerous claims on this page that the content related to Holocaust in Poland has been systematically distorted or manipulated. I have no idea what these people are talking about, even though I occasionally edit something related to this area. The only page mentioned in this case was Warsaw concentration camp. I never edited that one, but simply as a reader, I do agree that "due weight" was violated on this page by including a huge section about the "Discredited extermination camp story". It had to be mentioned only briefly. Most of this content was apparently inserted by user Szmenderowiecki, but it does not show any problems with his editing. Apparently, there is a current consensus for inclusion: this content was rather stable during last 1.5 months [55]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:AE was mostly successful in resolving problems in all subject areas. Speaking of the examples by Guerillero (below), first case was properly resolved by AE admins (please see the summary by closing admin on the top). I think that was fair summary and agree with such closing. Second case has produced a positive outcome: one of Icewitz socks (Bob not snob) was found and blocked in the process. Nothing else had happen because it had no merit. And that was also a correct outcome: many WP:AE cases have no merit. Now, if there are any serious problems with behavior of any users in this area (I do not think so, the page by Ealdgyth rather proves the opposite [56]), then anyone can bring a complaint to WP:AE, and in the unlikely event the case is too complex, it might be redirected by admins here. Looking at comments right now on this page, I simply do not see any clearly defined case. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an excellent graph by VM. I always thought (based on my experience) that ARBPIA is absolutely the worst subject area (where I could never edit), while Poland-related subjects are relatively peaceful. I was really surprised when El_C once said this is just the opposite. I assume this reflects personal perspective of El_C on the Holocaust-related subjects. The US politics is 2nd on the graph only because a lot more people edit subjects about USA (this area is not that bad). My very best wishes (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C. I mean these your comments: [57] and [58]. And I think you also explained the meaning of "my own personal history" (from 2nd diff). But it hardly matters. If you feel you can work objectively on WP:AE in this subject area, that's fine. Placing myself to your shoes, I would not be able to be objective, or at least I would be highly overzealous in the enforcement, which is probably not a good thing. But that is me. This is not to imply any problems on your part. To the contrary, I think your work is commendable.My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good reason why Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, and Armenia-Azerbaijan subject areas are a lot more "toxic" than Holocaust-related subjects. In the first three cases, there was/is a large-scale inter-ethnic conflict where each side blames another. However, in the case of Holocaust, there is no dispute that Nazi and their collaborators were responsible for the mass murder. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with statement by Cullen328 below. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

Assessment of the case in its initial scope

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to GCB's question and My very best wishes inappropriate venue statement

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.

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

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

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

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

Comments regarding the proposed motion: if we focus on reiterating policy only, as this motion does, then point 3 should address the off-wiki posting of allegations that would be unpostable here (e.g. on Wikipediocracy), which, so far as the comments went, some intend to use as a means to evade WP scrutiny, even if the policy says it shouldn't work. This includes, but is not limited to, statements to the effect that Jehochman, Levivich and François Robere are proxying for Icewhiz - no problem with them so long as these accusations are followed up by complaints at relevant noticeboards in a reasonable timeframe - a month's delay is hardly reasonable. (edited 09:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC))

Point 4 will not bear any real-life effect - I don't expect administrators to change their behaviour just because ArbCom wrote a reminder that they may punish users for violations of WP:PAGs at their own discretion, in line with the project's rules. That has already been the case since WP started operating! There is no encouragement at all to make difficult blocks for admins (as TonyBallioni suggests admins should be able to do regularly, and with which I agree), so the proportion of those actually enforcing policies, instead of trying to minimise bans or to ignore serious violations of civility on whichever side because the topic is controversial and heated, will not change, and the behaviour violations won't stop. The problem after all is not the lack of "legal framework" (DS are in place, AE/ANI/AN exist for a reason), it's unwillingness of the administrators to wade into quarrels and to impose what might seem as arbitrary and unfair blocks. I don't believe in sudden change of user/admin behaviour in general, but if you want to prove me wrong and show your willingness to act, the most immediate thing you can do is to desysop Jehochman for his comments re Nableezy - you are the only one authorised to do that; and probably more if warranted. Be bold, and show your example to the admins.

Point 5: I'm afraid this involvement might wind up as a 200K archive of a dispute that resolved nothing, has an outstanding RfC since August and still has an NPOV tag in spite of hundreds of userhours spent on the article. It was my first article expansion, and, even though admittedly not perfectly done when posting, it was not a nice experience at all. Inviting other users to join in to get this is as a reward is about the best way to convince users not to edit in this topic area on a long run. Tl;dr: though point 5 has noble intentions, it will most probably be counterproductive.

Point 6 has in-built wishful thinking - the atmosphere is toxic, which is the root cause of people leaving, and this motion does nothing to resolve it. Simply telling people to abide by rules and not to bend them to their tastes, without enforcing or at the very least asking to enforce in case of persistent/severe violations, is about as effective as trying to stop mistreatment of Uyghurs by China by making a UN resolution expressing "deep concern" about the human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

Same applies for point 8: everyone should know this by now but nothing will happen until administrators get ACTUALLY involved (see point 4), and so long as they aren't, the scheme of: deleting content someone doesn't like without adding anything themselves -> invoking WP:CHALLENGE to reverse the burden -> (repetitiously) invoking other policies not really relevant to the edit, even if superficially plausible (e.g. asserting BLPVIO where patently none exists) -> filibustering until the user seeking inclusion is tired to the point of no longer caring + making the discussion so bloated no admin will ever care to intervene, will stay lucrative.

The present case is so weird (changing scope, few diffs) the majority of Arbs wants to have little in common with it, and this is understandable. But instead of crafting an essentially toothless motion, when you're at it, you could have simply posted declines in a number larger than accepts and tell people to return later if something new happens. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Jehochman is on a long wikibreak [59] and is barred from editing the case page but somehow I see quite a lot of his activity here lately. Arbs, am I missing something? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, Volunteer Marek, the analysis doesn't really show what you're trying to show, and without context, it's misleading. To draw conclusions from raw numbers as you did, we have to be sure that the people reporting are equally not afraid/not tired to do so across the topic areas. Since we have evidence that admins increasingly adopt a hands-off approach to this particular topic area, being tired to do anything related to it, that would mean that users, having that in mind, won't simply post complaints to AE, knowing they wouldn't be acted upon or would be acted upon inadequately (which is what some of the admins here state quite frankly).

What is most important, however, is that most disputes in APL are about content - AE, just like ArbCom, is about conduct (and conduct doesn't often get reported because: see paragraph above). Many more troubling stuff happens on the content side, and Ealdgyth's case study shows that pretty well. Therefore, simply talking about AE without other enforcement noticeboards, i.e. AN, ANI or 3RR-related complaints does not give us the full picture. Finally, the graph seems to suggest to "reject this case and take up I/P instead", but just because I/P is disruptive doesn't mean APL isn't. This would probably be evidence if the question was: "Should we accept the Arm-Az case or this case?" We don't have that dilemma. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

statement possibly to be removed

Jehochman's statement --> Icewhiz denies harassing anyone, and claims that Piotrus and friends made false complaints [email by Icewhiz to me].. since revised by J.-->[60]

@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 -->[61] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman filed case specifying the issue as:

If a newspaper publishes an article critical of an editor's editing, can the editor remove that newspaper article, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia? [62]

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).. [63] (Text comparison here -->[64])

Facts:

Jehochman acknowledges corresponding by e-mail with Icewhiz [65]
declares not giving credence to anything Icewhiz says [66]
provides info that Haaretz is preparing a new article... book, documenting systemic problems with Wikipedia's Holocaust articles. [67]. When asked about the source of that information Jehochman doesn't give a clear answer [68] and subsequently ceases responding.[69]
reveals that all (?) is going to be exposed by the press. [70] (link to the entire conversation -->[71])

Issues:

Jehochman accused named editors of falsifying history in Eastern Europe for nationalistic ends [72], distorting articles about the Holocaust in Poland [73], damaging the encyclopedia via ahistoricism [74] and organized nationalist manipulation. [75],

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

Summary:

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

Note to Arbitrators:

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

Note to all

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

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

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

Link to the above sock puppets statement here -->[76] Notice: ..that's why Wikipedia made to the media in a negative sense a number of times (after the case was closed); and that's why it reportedly is gonna make it to headlines again. Quite soon.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Folks, I'm sorry, but the more I examine Jehochman's remarks as they keep coming and transforming, the more serious questions I have regarding the motives for filing this and the circumstances behind it. I also would like ArbCom to notice Jehochman's charge at one of the users who happened to be critical of him here. [77] (I'm speechless ) - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(word count - around 500+)

Let this -->[78] sink in. GizzyCatBella🍁 06:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich writes: Quote -->The truth is that.... these editors are pushing an agenda that damages the encyclopedia as well. [79]

@User:Ermenrich - Back up these accusations with diff's or strike that. Right now, please (!).
@ ArbCom - Please do not permit tossing serious accusations without evidence anymore. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quote - I did get an email from Icewhiz today.. [80]

This is beyond ridiculous .. Who else commenting here received an e-mail from Icewhiz? It would be appropriate to disclose it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like ArbCom team to notice something in the apology statement by Jehochman :

I apologize...for allowing Icewhiz to deceive me for his purpose of inflicting harm on other editors.[81]

Jehochman declared that he was deceived by Icewhiz and delivered this case request to inflict harm on other editors as Icewhiz intended.

My question is:

If the point of this request was to inflict harm on other editors, and now you know that from the filer, (you pardoning him), shouldn't you folks close this entire case without further discussion or (at the most) simple short motion?

I'm just puzzled why are you allowing Icewhiz to lead you by the nose. You are doing exactly what Icewhiz hoped for..we have one victim who most likely suffered from a mental breakdown because of this. (I'm sorry if my criticism of you is too harsh, but I'm shaking my head with disbelief) - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What an outstanding comment - [82], thank you Cullen328

Yes, how can we deal more effectively with the ongoing trolling and harassment by dedicated and obsessive LTAs? - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This breakdown speaks for itself - [83] No comment is needed. Let’s this sink in also. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EI_C - the AE cases dropped with the Icewhiz ban. He is a record holder at AE. Remember? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Izno ..And User:Astral_Leap, who filed the 2020 AE case, was later blocked as a sock puppet of Icewhiz. That's why I'm constantly saying that it's incredible how one toxic individual can deceive so many people, so successfully, for so long. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter writes - I got wiki-threats of the type "if you do not unblock immediately you will be taken to ArbCom to have you admin flag removed" [84]

Again - Diffs, and who has threatened you, please.

Ymblanter then writes - ..I do not think it is correct to say that my block was overturned at ANI..and decided that I do not care about the block if it has such consequences, so I have lifted it myself..

But in the unblock edit summary Ymblanter writes -

the was a provisional consensus at ANI that the previous block was incorrect; the clarification request was filed to ArbCom [85]

So what was it User:Ymblanter? The community consensus or your own decision? According to the community consensus, you made a poor block. That's why you reversed it.

You even admit to making a poor decision yourself here: On a second thought, this was a poor decision... [86]

Below is the link to the case Ymblanter is speaking about:

[87] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Ealdgyth - Nobody here “threatened“ Ymblanter. The person who said they wanted Ymblanter tools removed was a user not involved in this case (Only In Death) due to some unrelated dispute. Only In Death has nothing to do with this case or this topic area.[88] - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom - I would like to demonstrate to you what you are dealing with here.

Please take a look at the recent activity of User:Ermenrich , who supported Jehochman, supported all users accusing VM and Piotrus and then attacked now vanished user MyMoloboaccount in his statements. [89]

MyMoloboaccount requests and gets blocked on January 2, 2022: [90]

A day later, on January 3, 2022, user Ermenrich begins reverting his now-vanished opponent:

Werner Conze article:

MyMoloboaccount -[91] Ermenrich reverts on January 3, 2021 -[92]

Bildungsbürgertum article:

MyMoloboaccount -[93] Ermenrich reverts on January 3, 2022 - [94]

They continue on January 4th, 2022:

Theodor Oberländer article:

MyMoloboaccount -[95] Ermenrich reverts on January 4, 2022 - [96]

Then they continue on January 5th, 2022:

Walter Kuhn article:

MyMoloboaccount - [97] Ermenrich revert January 5, 2022 - [98] then continues reverting here [99][100],[101], [102] and so on - basically sweeps edits of his opponent. More in the editing history [103]

Today is the 6th... (..... fill blank area tomorrow?)

So what do you think ArbCom? Based on the above behaviour, are you dealing here solely with users who have legitimate concerns over Wikipedia, or did some show up here exclusively to get their opponents blocked over the content dispute or old grudges? (~~by the way, could you please act on the above? Thank you~~ ..actually ArbCom, you decide if you wish to act on it or not. I think you already have plenty on your plate, so perhaps skip acting. I just wanted to show you what's happening as you still trying to resolve this crisis) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Warsaw Concentration Camp)

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

Revised statement by Robert McClenon

The actions of the involved editors, and the ArbCom response, make it clear that the subject area is toxic, and that there was bad conduct during the consideration of this case itself. If the ArbCom merely makes a statement that there were breaches of civility and personal attacks during the consideration of the case, and does not act against them, ArbCom will be sending a message that future disruption of cases will be similarly ignored. The proposed case close with only multiple warnings will be seen as a message to POV warriors and other disruptive editors that Wikipedia can be swarmed, that there is likely to be no cost for misconduct, and possibly a great benefit in terms of slanting the encyclopedia. The ArbCom must open a case to consider, at least, the conduct of the filing party and other editors with regard to this case itself. The filing party and other editors acted badly, and appear to be getting a get out of jail free card. This must not be allowed. Misconduct during the consideration of the case itself must be identified and sanctioned.

I had previously written that I thought that a full case was not required if the issue was minimizing further damage done by Icewhiz, and that ArbCom should work quietly with the WMF and law enforcement. I was mistaken. On-wiki misconduct should be dealt with on-wiki. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overtaken by events. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Comment

I concur with the recommendation made by one editor that if the case is primarily about minimizing the continuing damage by Icewhiz, the work may best be done by the ArbCom and the WMF, privately, using publicly available and privately available evidence. It does seem that this controversy is largely about Icewhiz, in which case a formal case is not needed, and the work should be done with the WMF and behind the scenes with law enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC) A supplemental statement will be added within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confused comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confused Comment

I don't know what the "sides" are in this controversy, and am not sure that I want to know. I know that this case is about twentieth-century Polish history, which involved an invasion by Nazi Germany, and the Holocaust, and controversy about collaboration in atrocities, and then an occupation by the Soviet Union, and more atrocities. I think that I know what the historical tragedy is, and how neutral chronicling is difficult. I also know that there have been disruptive bad actors in Wikipedia. I am not sure that I want to know what the "sides" are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comment

Shame! Shame! The ArbCom is acknowledging that there have been conduct issues, and is doing nothing useful anyway. The ArbCom took the extraordinary action of suspending the case by fully protecting the case request, and, in the process, fully protecting the usual means for any editor to file a new case request. The ArbCom is inviting editors who either have not edited in the area or who have been avoided editing in the area due to the toxic environment to come and improve the encyclopedia, while doing nothing to provide a civil environment for editing.

User:Barkeep49 is right, in writing: "We would be better of straight declining this case, and merely failing in our responsibility to the community, than to pass this motion." Declining the case would, as Barkeep49 says, be a failure. This handwave is a worse failure. Maxim, Wug, and Captain Eek are also right. Neither I nor many other members of the community have any idea what ArbCom thinks they are doing that is constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

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

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

Very strongly agree with Guerillero's statement. I'd further add that we elect this committee first-and-foremost for dispute resolution tact, and for making difficult decisions. ArbCom doesn't revisit individual editors in our most contentious topics, ever, and while AE admins are experienced and try their best they often can't deal with the most engrained issues. If we're deciding by fiat, which is what AE is too, then the buck needs to stop at this committee. ArbCom's job is more than just procedural motions to enact DS, it's figuring out where the issues lie and resolving them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs may wish to note the motion regarding MyMoloboaccount was replaced by the editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: The documentation for {{Arbcomblock}} says: This block template is only used on userpages or in block logs of accounts that have been blocked as a result of a private, off-wiki decision by the committee. It should not be used for users banned as a result of an on-wiki arbitration decision; those users are blocked by community administrators (or a committee clerk) when the decision is published, and fall into a different category of blocked/banned users. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

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

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

Also note an earlier incident on the same subject.

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

@El C: You forgot to mention your five behavioral warnings to Volunteer Marek, which never materialized into sanctions.[104][105][106][107][108][109] François Robere (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Wugapodes: Back in 2019: [110][111] François Robere (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Take a look at WP:APL#History at dispute-resolution venues. The reason you don't have as many AE requests in the TA today is simple: AE hasn't proved effective, so people don't file there anymore. If you want to see the extent of wrongdoing in the TA, that's not the place. François Robere (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Recalling our discussion from August[112] - if the request is accepted, I urge ArbCom and its clerks to consider new ways of conducting the case. More specifically, I would suggest that the diff and word limits are removed; discussion is moderated more strictly than usual; and everyone are kept appraised of the arbs' state of mind on an ongoing basis. Together these measures should allow for a more thorough and civilized discussion, while removing some of the stress and unpredictability such cases entail. François Robere (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Opening: regrets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuck in the... withdrawals with you:

Suspension

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

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

WPO stuff. Doesn't matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another collapse bites the dust

Opabinia regalis, sorry, I've been racking my brains about the possible meaning of the acronym (?) mini-PD, but I've come up short. I'm sure it's something obvious, but I'm still drawing a blank. El_C 11:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, proposed decision, of course! Thanks, weird account. Man, Arb nomenclature, hard to remember all the stuff. And things. I'll be quiet now. El_C 15:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, RE: positive vibes. As the admin commenting here who has probably done more work at WP:AE than anyone else, I can tell the you that resolving WP:APL disputes there is, to put it mildly, exceptionally challenging.

For one, there's usually an Icewhiz or three 'participating,' for two, this seems to give license to some members of the opposing team to engage in gross incivility (and worse) often in scattershot way against non-Icewhizes who oppose them (I realize this isn't evidence, but my impression, so FWIW). But I can appreciate your reservations about the vibes (truly), so I'm looking forward to your reformulation. El_C 18:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, well said. And Wugapodes, wow. I don't even know what to call what you just said (irreverence?), but if anything could renew my faith in the Committee, it's that. I'm humbled by the depth of your perception as I am by your willingness, alongside Barkeep49, to go against the grain (of seeming institutional impenetrability). Thank you! El_C 23:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes:

1. If you mention me multiple times, I'd appreciate a ping as a courtesy. You wrote: I was really surprised when El_C once said this is just the opposite — oh? Not sure what you mean.

2. Next you write: I assume this reflects personal perspective of El_C on the Holocaust-related subjects — what other perspective am I expected to have other than my own? I'm confused.

3. Most of the issues I've referred to occurred in 2020 and earlier. Generally, I've done little work at WP:AE in 2021.

4. By 2021, my sense is that most editors have pretty much given up on bringing APL items to AE, so aggregating 2021 cases as examples, seems like a questionable statistical device. El_C 06:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, as mentioned above to MVBW, I'd appreciate a ping if you were to mention or address me during these proceedings. To answer: Icewhiz was subject to an {{ArbComBlock}} in 2019, so your point eludes me. El_C 06:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AlexEng, sorry, you lost me. Maybe it's worth mentioning that it's likely that I, myself, have blocked more Icewhiz socks than any other admin who has commented here (arbs included), so I think I have a decent understanding of the overall context and its nuances. El_C 08:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AlexEng, the socking has driven people away, the reaction to the socking has driven people away. It goes both ways. El_C 09:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: above, I expressly asked you for a ping me when addressing me, so you write in plain text @El_C? Okay... Anyway, I have personal history in ARBPIA too, as well as other subject matters. Obviously, I'm not you, but thanks for your concern, I guess. El_C 21:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't caught up with the latest. But arbitrators, no slight here. I voted for nearly all of you. Still, I don't think many of you (possibly any of you) have done work at... Arbitration enforcement (AE). So it's a bit of a conundrum having so little representation in that regard.

One of the reasons this has been the second year in a row where I've 'tried' to Jan 6 (++ topical!) Guerillero post-ACE is because he has ample AE experience, which I think is important for the composition of the Committee. Oh well, voters, etc. And note that when it comes to APL, myself and Guerillero don't exactly see eye to eye, but his knowledge of the AE environment would have been invaluable. El_C 00:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jan 6 — Noo, 4 minutes too late. Damn you UTC! El_C 00:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pabsoluterince

Extended content

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

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

It would be a complete failing of arbcom to allow the very toxic and uncivil behaviour that lead to the problems we're seeing in the topic area to occur during this request and be excused. Effectively ignoring and dismissing this behaviour, doesn't help the community where it's needed, L235: "The fact that we're not sanctioning any particular person in these motions should not be considered our endorsement of their actions; admins and the community are free to enact sanctions for disruptive conduct whether or not by the users named here", Opabinia regalis: "It would be wise for everyone... to carefully examine their own contributions to the obvious unpleasantness in this topic area" (despite opposing formal sanctions). I agree with Maxim: that this is a "complex situation that merits a careful and measured examination", and should investigated with a full case, rather than trying to fix the issues with a set of premature motions.

Arbcom will set the benchmark for admins enforcing DS of what acceptable behaviour is. And it should be the most heavy handed with its handing out of punishments. Supposedly, "Arbitration Committee proceedings are reminded that they are subject to high standards of behavior", yet given the earlier quote and the current support for petty admonishments and reminders, I don't see evidence of subjection to this high standard of behaviour.

In a technical way, maybe arbcom doesn't really have the proper case request to pursue these avenues. But given this attempt to bring a case to arbcom failing... miserably and ending up in this disaster; How can you pass the buck back the community expecting someone brave to bring Antisemitism in Poland 3 back here, hoping that it fits your bureaucratic checklists? I suggest - unacquainted with formalities - accept this request and mold it into a reasonable request with a reasonable scope.

It feels like the only safety nets that can respond if admonished individuals should have been tbanned/banned/desysoped are currently being underutilised for day-to-day sanctioning of disruptive conduct. Yes, the community is free to enact sanctions but given that we've seen a mastery class of incivility and unpleasantness in the topic area that hasn't been dealt with by the community, shows how ripe this case is and why it shouldn't be dismissed. So I suggest you get it right, here, this time, using a full case.

To rehash a what has already been said, I don't understand the votes on these motions: how can you vote to oppose a desysop motion because it would require a full case to evaluate, yet not vote for a full case? There are opposing votes on the desysop request that rely on arguments that could be overturned with evidence from a full case (CaptainEek, Izno, Wugapodes, Donald Albury). Likewise there is also a supporting vote there in the same boat Beeblebrox. Yet you don't suppose a full case? To me this process is not constituting a careful and measured examination. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

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

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

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

I'm finally sorta free - and now I see that my efforts to unearth the Polish-Jewish-relations-in-WWII books may have been in vain? Arbs, would some information on any distortions of the topic area in our articles be useful at this stage or should I just give up yet again? Ealdgyth (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above, E-960 (talk · contribs) says "Also, Ealdgyth says that they has "proof" of questionable editing by Piotrus, MV, etc., which are evidence of not just bad editing, but deliberate misrepresentations." No where did I state that I had "proof" of questionable editing by any named editor. This is a great example of how the area is so full of battleground behavior that my statements in this request that never mentioned any editors by name have been turned into me being somehow on one side. Right now, I'm still just documenting the problems in one article, I haven't even begun to try to figure out who did the original misrepresentations I'm finding. But if someone wanted my opinion, I'd say that it's likely that the battleground mindset of many of the editors (of whichever side) has led to such entrenchment that sloppy editing and misreresentations are happening in an effort to keep the other "sides" from "winning". I'm going to probably just make a subpage for the errors/problems I'm finding... but this isn't the easiest thing to do when I'm a passenger in a semi-truck driving through snow-covered Nebraska...Ealdgyth (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've documented a few of the issues I found with one article (and another weight issue with another article) at User:Ealdgyth/Holocaust in occupied Poland arb com evidence. Frankly, that took about 10 hours of my time and I hope that the arbs actually look at it carefully, but I have my doubts. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to highlight something so it doesn’t get lost. Here Ymblanter notes how they were threatened after making a block in this topic area, and not of editors or socks from Icewhiz’s “side”. But we’re repeatedly told that it’s all Icewhiz and their socks causing the issues in this topic area. Personally, if I was an uninvolved admin looking at an AE report, the threats issued to Ymblanter would make me think twice before doing any actions. And certainly it’s made me as an editor less likely to edit in the area. It’s not just Icewhiz, folks, although they are nasty too. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC) addendum, since it took me ages to find the archive, [[113]] is the archive of the clarification request, which basically does appear to read as if the arbs concurred with Ymblanter’s reading of the remedy as it was at the time of the blocks. Of course, this is ArbCom, so what appears clear it never is, especially in this topic area.[reply]

Statement by AlexEng

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

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

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

@Primefac: with respect, points 5 and 6 of your proposed motion feel like a toothless remedy to the ongoing problem of vitriol and acerbic discourse in this topic area. Will you not act to further reassure editors and administrators that they have nothing to fear by re-engaging in the topic area? I'm afraid I don't see the situation improving based on this motion alone. Who's going to have the fortitude to start another case from scratch, knowing they'll be going through a wringer like this one again? The fact that so many editors have removed statements from this case request seems like dismal foreshadowing as to the answer we can expect. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: To put this as respectfully as possible, the "point" is that some editors think that Icewhiz is the root of all problems in this topic area, whether he is banned or not, and that other editors view the at times off-putting fixation on Icewhiz and the subsequent socking/meatpuppetry/proxying accusations as a deterrent to policy-based contribution, enthusiasm, and adequate enforcement in this topic area. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Sorry I wasn't clear. My perspective is that the reaction to socking has driven people away. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I'm not sure that's an adequate excuse for what has happened to this topic area. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I'm pleased to hear you see it that way rather than as one-sided. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

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

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

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

Statement by Black Kite

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

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

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

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

Ah, so an admin proxying for a banned user (not to mention the comments to Nableezy) is fine if you apologise afterwards. Noted. Beeblebrox's comment on the desysop motion is absolutely on the nail here. Black Kite (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AlexEng Whilst Icewhiz is obviously the major problem, the level of the sockpuppetry involved here can be gauged by a brief perusal of the 50+ blocked socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive/1, and the 60+ at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון/Archive amongst others. Black Kite (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robby.is.on

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

Statement by Ermenrich

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

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

Extended content

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

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

@E-960:, I work in plenty of other areas with annoying and persistent socks (Turkic-adjacent topics, for instance), and yet none of them are as toxic as things Poland-related. The (main) problem is not the globally banned user who makes socks to try to get their way, the main problem is the people who are still around. You'll recall that it was not just he-who-must-not-be-named who was sanctioned in the original Antisemitism in Poland case, and while I think almost everyone agrees that the Arbs did not do a spectacular job then, I have no doubt that they were right that blame is to be found on more than one side.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: the case is not “primarily about halting the damage caused by Icewhiz”. It’s about Icewhiz being used as an excuse to inflict damage on the encyclopedia by his ideological opponents and their behavior in doing so. I’m hopeful that Ealdgyth will be adding some diffs to that affect shortly. The “other side” would like to make this all about Icewhiz because then their own behavior and contentious editing will escape scrutiny- after all, if they’re trying to stop a globally banned harasser, all means are allowed, no one even needs to look into what they’re doing. The truth is that, as identified in RS, these editors are pushing an agenda that damages the encyclopedia as well. Not everyone who opposes them is an Icewhiz sock or meat puppet as they’d like you to believe.—Ermenrich (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the statement by Szmenderowiecki. @E-960:, certainly blame is to be found on both sides (nor do I think everyone who edits "on the other side" is a crazy Polish nationalist), but there's only one side that regularly gets called out in articles outside Wikipedia. Besides the ones that came after the Benjakob story there was at least one earlier newspaper article on the subject I can't locate. Either you buy in to the idea that there's some sort of sinister plot to gang up on Poland... or something is going on here. Whatever the case, the topic area is definitely not helped by certain users' obsession with Icewhiz.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's just some of the press (what I can find on a quick google search - locating things about WP on Google is hard!) that the Warsaw concentration camp story has produced: [114] The effort is part of a larger trend in Poland to distance itself from culpability in the Holocaust and portray the Polish people solely as victims of Nazi persecution, despite growing research on the depth of Polish complicity in Nazi crimes. [115] Professor Havi Dreifuss, head of Yad Vashem’s Center for Research on the Holocaust in Poland, said “this baseless story … is sadly gaining traction today as part of a wider attempt in Poland to distort the history of the Holocaust. By pulling another 200,000 victims out of thin air, they’re trying to equate what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust to what happened to Poles during the Holocaust.”. The story was also picked up by several German outlets, including Deutschlandfunk Nova and an excerpt from a book by German Wikipedian Pavel Richter in Der Spiegel [116] which I won't quote here. Now compare these edits [117], [118]. Compare some of the stuff Ealdgyth has found, particularly the earlier items.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: problems with Molobo's editing are very well documented. See [119], which I only did not bring up earlier because the poor man seems to have suffered a mental breakdown. At any rate, I have not "swept" my opponent. The article still says Kuhn was a Nazi, I've kept a number of statements from Molobo I still think are questionable that are sourced to things I can't access or read, etc. Mostly I've been trimming the article. Or do we need to include five statements in a row saying the same thing [120]? Many of my removals have been to things I added, e.g. [121], [122], which I originally added [123]. I also added the quotations from Rhode that I removed. Other changes have simply been the removal of section headings and re-organization of the article, e.g. [124]. I find it hard to find fault with any of these changes.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Regarding this edit [125], I had no idea that Molobo added the word "Nazi" there, though I guess it is does not surprise me in hindsight. Oberländer is connected to another article I've been working on. I also did not start editing Werner Conze because I wanted to undo Molobo. Or does anyone think that this version is worse than this version? Changing what Molobo wrote is merely a consequence of improving the article - there's barely anything of the old lead left, after all. I think the fact that I'm not interested in simply opposing Molobo can be shown by the following edits related to the ones Gizzy brought up, [126], [127].--Ermenrich (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

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

Statement by Calidum

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

Edit: Comments like these from VM [128] [129] [130] have a chilling effect on ongoing discussions. It's also rich for him to claim he has "no direct possible involvement" [131] in the matter on one hand but then justifies his bludgeoning the discussion by stating he is only defending himself [132] two days later. Which is it? Calidum 15:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: Not all editors who disagree with VM et al are sock puppets or friends of Icewhiz. I'm not. So comments like "The reason it's being discussed 2 years later is because some editors, friends of Icewhiz, can't let this shit go" (see the first diff I linked) and "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" (second diff) cross the line into poisoning the well (props to El_C for reminding me of that term). Calidum 14:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:力

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

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

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

Statement by Darwinek

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

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

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

Comment by E-960

Calidum and Ermenrich, not sure if you were aware, but there were several sockpuppet incidents, which were ultimately tied to Icewhiz, and you could say that I was a victim in such a case where two "editors" who voted for the strongest possible T-BAN in a discussion were later found to be sockpuppets [133]. Ultimately, Hippeus and Astral Leap were blocked as sockpupets of Icewhiz, and the list of some the blocked sockpuppets can be found here: [134]. So, this is a serious issue and it should not be trivialized. Btw, that particular T-BAN was not related to the topics of Holocaust and WWII in Poland, however in the past I did interact with Icewhiz on some level, though not to the extent as some folks here. Ultimately, I do think that the numerous issues with some of the Holocaust and WWII in Poland articles could have been resolved in a better way, and without the need for ArbCom, if not for the approach that was used by Icewhiz. So, I do feel that the reason why we are all here, is because of the toxic atmosphere which was in many ways created by Icewhiz. This is just my take on the situation at this time. --E-960 (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich, I agree that this is not a one sided issue. However, your analysis that "The (main) problem is not the globally banned user who makes socks to try to get their way" is way off the mark. Because in effect, a user who makes sockpuppets is "still around", in my case those sockpuppets pushed the most extreme T-BAN in what I assume was an effort to try and remove me form editing as much as possible. In the process, they created more angry and frustrated exchanges. I can't help but wonder, if these difficult discussions regarding the Holocaust and WWII in Poland would have progressed differently (not saying they would have been easy). After all, when you use terms like the "Polocaust" you are really asking for other editors to get frustrated, angry and offended. Thus, creating a toxic environment. --E-960 (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I note you response, and here is the thing... there is no easy answer, because the Jews all over Europe were the MAIN targets of Nazi extermination. Yet, also when talking about the occupation of Poland, both Poles and Jews were the main victims, the Jews were being exterminated on an industrial scale, yet at the same time Poles were deprived of their homeland (made stateless through a series of legal acts), and subject to indiscriminate executions and slave labor. So, were Poles the main victims of the Holocaust, the answer is clearly NO (by far the Jews were without question). However, were the Poles and Jews together victims of the German occupation of Poland, YES. These are two related topics, yet they address WWII from two different angles. It is a blatant POV push/omission to say that Poles were not the main victims in the German scheme to occupy their country. I think that if there is a will on both sides there is a way to address this topic in a neutral way and correctly present it on Wikipedia, all the while taking into consideration the various perspectives in a subject matter that is inherently complex, as it involves so many aspects all rolled into one. I think this would have been reached long ago if not for for some editors. --E-960 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, can I ask you if the evidence you'll be providing only pertains to one side of the dispute, or will you be examining and presenting examples of problematic editing from both sides? I don't mean to be overly inquisitive, but I wanted to know if you spotted any issues on both sides of the dispute or just one. --E-960 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich, I think your comment(s) are way off the mark when you say "The other side would like to make this all about Icewhiz because then their own behavior and contentious editing will escape scrutiny." I personally recall being involved in discussions where François Robere, Icewhiz and/or Levivich, joined in and vigorously argued a similar stance. Yet, apparently Piotrus, VM or whoever else are accused of being a part of some Polish "nationalist" cabal which drives away neutral editors, because they hold similar views on some topics just like François Robere, Icewhiz and Levivich. Also, Ealdgyth says that they has "proof" of questionable editing by Piotrus, MV, etc., which are evidence of not just bad editing, but deliberate misrepresentations. I'll try to pull similar examples from the other side myself in order to show that examples of bad editing are not proof of some "nationalist" cabal, but were rampant on both sides (Robert McClenon, Barkeep49, pls consider my statement as well). --E-960 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, Barkeep49 and Ermenrich (no need to respond, just please have a look), here are a couple of quick examples of questionable behavior (that which "drives away" neutral editors). These examples show it's not just Piotrus or VM (as alleged by user Ermenrich), who are creating a toxic environment, and that Icewhiz was just a convenient scapegoat for that "other side":

- Example of WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:TENDENTIOUS comments from François Robere who often sided with Icewhiz on various topics related to WWII.[135] Here FR joined in on a very, very questionable discussion (originally titled prior to change "Jesus Christ King of Poland?"), which occurred on the Poland article after text added by another user was reverted. In short, the reverted text stated that Poland is a monarchy because Jesus Christ is the King of Poland, and François Robere kept arguing in favor of the text (at least in some form). Given the ridiculous nature such content and the constant back-and-forth manner in which François Robere kept up the debate, one could perhaps interpret this as a behavior which contributed to a toxic environment, causing other editors to get frustrated.

- Example of battleground comments from François Robere who said during a discussion on the Collaboration with the Axis Powers article "That's, again, the usual Polish heap of justifications (along with "they thought they were communists" and a few others). You can spin in a thousand ways 'till Sunday and you won't escape one simple fact: Polish Poles gladly turned against Polish Jews, and they only needed an opportunity to do it, not a justification. The Polish war and post-war myth is full of these, and we're way past it. François Robere (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)" This is a rather blatantly bias statement, which suggests that all Poles GLADLY (no less) turned on their Jewish neighbors.

Yet, it's the Polish "nationalists" who are saying obnoxious things, causing disruptions, and scaring away neutral editors on Wikipedia. I would find more gems like this, but I'm already well past my 500 words. Also, Ealdgyth I apologize if this entire discussion became a mush of arguments and counter arguments in my head, and I ended up thinking you were asked to provide examples/proof of bad editing only on Piotrus and VM. In my opinion an ArbCom is a bad idea, issues regarding content should be resolved on the talk page, and if they become contentious enough editors can start a RfC or use formal topic mediation in order to resolve issues of wording, sources, content and undue weight. And misbehavior should be dealt with swiftly to prevent escalation. I am frustrated that Piotrus and VM are again dragged though the mud by some, and yet another action involving them is being considered, especially that from across the aisle those editors (using this categorization loosely) also have problems with holding to good editing and communication practices. What this topic area needs is just better/more stringent enforcement of already existing rules, not an ArbCom regarding who knows what, because I'm still not sure what user Jehochman actually wants out of this request. --E-960 (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Lomrjyo

As of writing this statement, ~~there is a net of 4 votes~~, so I ask: Why is this case not been accepted yet? -- lomrjyo 🐱^{(✉ • 📝)} 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek, Thanks for the clarification. -- lomrjyo 🐱^{(✉ • 📝)} 18:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This motion looks to be a good solution to get out of this case req, while leaving future cases open. Good work, I must say. -- lomrjyo 🐱^{(✉ • 📝)} 00:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

In light of Ermenrich's last statement (1 Jan at 14:xx) I would point out that this all revolves around the use of the Haaretz source to only document that WP had false information about Warsaw concentration camps that had persisted for a decade which other sources picked up on using WP as their source, creating citogenesis issues. None of the usage of this source I've seen (or as I recommended during the COIN) brought up who's fault that was or the like, or any of the other details mentioned about this long-standing conflict from EEML, nor was any of that necessary. Instead, using an RS to footnote on the concentration camp article that there was bad information that had been removed as a means of redaction, and then reusing this on pages about Wikipedia's problems with false information, again simply to document from an RS that this happened and nothing else with the editors involved, seems like a straight-forward application of the article. I can understand the concern that Icewhiz fed this to Haaretz, but Haaretz clearly did additional research to validate the information and spoke to editors to learn more; there is no appearance that they accepted Icewhiz' account without question. (This would be in contrast to a certain editor who will not be named that is now writing columns at Breitbart News and remains super critical of WP's policies after they were banned).

I've said at the COIN that I don't think that VM or Piotrus' removal of the reference from such articles was a conflict of interest on their part, but that consensus found that it was acceptable to use the article meant they were edit warring to remove it. As such, unless ArbCom wants to open a lot of can of worms to re-evaluate EEML, I think this is really still at a community level to handle: did these two edit war, and is the Haaretz source acceptable to use to document that WP had false information for more than a decade? Neither of these feel like Arbcom-level needs, since I am highly confident that any aspects related directly to Icewhiz or their past interaction with VM/Piotrus, and anyone else named in the Haaretz article, aren't even being called into use within Wikitext here. There are concerns with VM/Piotrus' actions but they are issues we can discuss from adminstrators' overview and community decision if we simply isolate the problem to these two factors. --Masem (t) 15:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

If the arbs would like to not open a case, I strongly suggest that they take over enforcing the DS at ARCA. Yinz are suposed to be our final decsion making body and it vexes me that you are passing the buck back to ten or so admins who are trying to help the project. This continues the trend of yinz doing the easy thing (passing DS) and hand the unpopular work of carrying it out to us. In the last two Poland-related threads I suggested that people come to ArbCom (February 2021 and April 2021). The walls of text and diff bombing that we had here are the norm for Poland-related AE threads. Please take on some of this burden. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: We haven't see a Russavia sock in a bit which worries me. This is the sort of thing that would really attract him. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Something that you are missing is that most AE requests are simple: topic ban the person acting beyond the pale, NOTHERE block the obvious trouble maker, CU the obvious sock, hand out a pair of interaction bans to people not getting along, block for 48 hours for 1RR violations, etc. This topic area is special because all of these threads are complex shades of grey. The reason that El_C and I voted overturn GizzyCatBella's topic ban is that it was creating more disruption than it was preventing.

I strongly encourage arbs and people who are thinking about becoming arbs to pitch in at AE. What I am seeing here is a drastic lack of people who have enforced DS before and know how AE works. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

Note that I indefinitely blocked MyMoloboaccount which went ballistic on this page, and one of the diffs was [136]. I did not post anything at their talk page since they explicitly said they do not want anything posted there. Whereas from my side it is a technical measure, it would probably be easier is ArbCom takes over the block in case user changes their mind later.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I do not think it is correct to say that my block was overturned at ANI. I got wiki-threats of the type "if you do not unblock immediately you will be taken to ArbCom to have you admin flag removed", as a result I had a medical emergency (of which I was recovering for a week) and decided that I do not care about the block if it has such consequences, so I have lifted it myself. I was taken to Arbcom nothwithstanding (though to ARCA and not to a straight case), and my reading of the proceedings is that ArbCom confirmed the validity of my actions.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nug

What a sad train wreck this request has proven to be. While Barkeep49’s supplemental motions seem to effectively confirm IceWhiz’s efforts to get others to proxy his battleground has been successful (though I think Arbcom’s admonishment of Jehochman’s said proxying and bizarre attack on Nableezy’s user boxes is justified), I find the motion warning MyMoloboaccount particularly cruel and unnecessary given MyMoloboaccount's request to Arbcom to delete his account due to his health issues. --Nug (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

Barkeep49, you asked 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? Honestly I think this is just exhaustion on the part of the community in trying to deal with this. To me it seems clear that there is counterproductive behavior going on here, and that the community hasn't been able to figure out how to handle it. I'd like to see ArbCom accept the case simply because hey, we haven't tried this yet, let's give it a go and see if it'll help. I wish we could just ban anyone who has an extreme opinion on Poland/Holcaust from editing in the area.

On a scale of 1-7 where 1 indicates very strongly yes and 7 indicates very strongly no, do you think Poland's involvement in the Holocaust has been misrepresented in the press/academia/popular culture?

Anyone who answers 1 or 7 probably shouldn't be editing in the topic. —valereee (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be pissy here, but what we're coming out of all this with is an admonishment of the OP and a reminder to participants that civility is expected at ArbCom? We aren't going to address the very real problems at the topic area at all. All of this, for nothing. Nothing. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Regarding the motion on conduct during proceedings: I suggest a reminder that during a case request, commenters should limit their comments to those that can help the arbitratation committee decide if a case should be accepted. For this purpose, it's not necessary to counter arguments for the underlying dispute, or to present a full account of all details. It's sufficient to describe the scope of the problem and the attempts to resolve it by the community. isaacl (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

Editors participating in Arbitration Committee proceedings are reminded that they are subject to high standards of behavior. Editors are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances must often be aired during proceedings, editors are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations. Accusations of misbehavior must be supported by clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Statements containing private or sensitive information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email and are subject to the arbitration policy's provisions on admissibility of evidence. This is a very strong declaration. It should be rigorously applied here and hence setting a precedent for future cases because it has not always been respected and/or clerked in the past. With no dog in the fight but having followed this case request with great interest, I would recommend that the committee accept to open a full case, but in view of the members' voting to date, this (and mt statement) might be too late. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeppiz

My original statement is now moot

This is not an isolated incident, but another example of Jehochman's bad judgement. In November 2021, I came very close to quitting Wikipedia after more than ten years, because of how Jehochman used his admin powers. The full story can be viewed here [137], but long story short: an abusive user repeatedly edit warred and used racial insults against several other users. In the end, there was complete consensus (12 for, 0 against) to topic ban the user. Unfortunately, this process was greatly hindered by Jehochman repeatedly trying to shut it down. First, for no reason he cast aspersions on the filing user, Impru20 [138] who had done nothing wrong. Jehochman even went to the filing user's talk page to warn him just for having filed a complaint [139]. Again, this was after the reported user had already engaged in numerous racist personal attacks and heavy edit warring, so the report was perfectly legitimate. Next, when I filed another report about the same user, Jehochman decided to give me a warning [140]. Once again, my "offense" was having filed a report (that ended up getting full support). Fortunately, better admins stepped in, refiled my report and pointed out Jehochman's errors [141], but Jehochman's repeated efforts to save the harasser and go after any user who filed a complaint against the harasser was very frustating. Even though I am glad all admins and users who took part in the subsequent discussion stood up for me, and the abusing user was tbanned and blocked, at no point did Jehochman apologize for how he behaved towards Impru20 and me. With this in mind, I would kindly ask the arbitrators to desysop Jehochman. Admins at Wikipedia do a great job, and I'm happy to say virtually every admin I've come across in a decade does an amazing job. As the ongoing case, and the incident in November show, Jehochman is an exception. I do not doubt his motives or intentions, but he gets things completely wrong too often, is too fast in making judgements and, apparently, unwilling to take the time required to put himself into cases before jumping to actions. To put it simply: Wikipedia spends more time cleaning up after Jehochman than we gain from his actions. For that reason, I believe it would be best for all if he continues his involvement (again, I bear no personal grunt against him and I do not doubt his good motives) but without administrative powers. Jeppiz (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman has taken the decision to resign as admin, which renders my comment above moot. I wish to express my respect for his decision, and for him as a person. I reiterate that any criticism I put forward was purely against some admin actions, and not personal. Quite the opposite, every interaction with Jehochman shows him to be a thoughtful and polite individual. I hope he will continue to contribute to Wikipedia and I wish him the very best. Jeppiz (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I was motivated to comment, reluctantly, on this slow motion train wreck when I noticed that Jehochman has resigned as an administrator. My reluctance is based on the fact that I disclose my real world identity and may be exposing myself to more real world harassment. Perhaps that resignation by an administrator might cause people to refocus on the real issue here. The errors regarding the Warsaw concentration camp were significant and genuine, but have been cleaned up and really ought to be behind us by now. The reason that they are not behind us is clear: the ongoing trolling and vigorous pot stirring by Icewhiz, who has been banned for severe harassment and vile threats. Severe and vile. Some editors I respect argue that no editor should remove coverage in a reliable source that criticizes those editors. That seems a reasonable argument at first glance and probably applies to 99% of cases. In this particular case, it seems clear that the reliable source coverage was generated and shaped by the despicable Icewhiz troll. Every reliable source can make a mistake. I happen to believe that the New York Times is an excellent source and I have probably cited it more than any other source. But any serious student of the New York Times knows that they have made some major blunders over the years. All reliable sources make mistakes and rectifying their mistakes is an indicator of their reliability.

In the ideal world, the editors accused of removing this "reliable source" criticism of their own editing should have abstained, and relied on uninvolved editors to remove the content cited to a "reliable source" article inspired and shaped by a vile, disgusting troll who threatens and harasses Wikipedia editors with impunity. But uninvolved editors did not come to their defense. Wikipedia failed them. Yes, they have been strident and combative in their own defense, but they have also been harassed, and harassment often brings out that type of response. That is precisely how trolls roll, and why I am sure that Icewhiz is enjoying this debacle.

Jehochman made serious errors and has had the the integrity to resign. I thank Jehochman for their service. Piotrus and VM perhaps made errors in response to Icewhiz's trolling/harassment, but I think their errors pale in comparison to the appalling behavior from Icewhiz. I encourage ArbCom to refocus on the real issue instead of chastising side players. How can we deal more effectively with the ongoing trolling and harassment by dedicated and obsessive LTAs? Icewhiz in this case, but there are many others. We need better precedents for dealing with long term abusers. Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

Why have you, ah, diligent professionals not closed this "case request" yet? The new cruelty?Dan Murphy (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Dennis Brown

In the past, I've seen a motion or two given instead of a full case, but this is rather unique. It feels like "Super-admin ANI", in light of the findings of facts without soliciting them first, mixed in with proposals for multiple harsh sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slatersteven

I am unsure what this report is about, other than the claim that for 15 years our article peddled a lie (according to multiple RS). I do not accept the argument these RS were written by a banned user (and they are all RS, so WE should not be second-guessing them). I think that there is way too much personalizing and POV pushing overall on the article in question, as well as a continuation (it seems to me) of disputes with a now-banned user.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nardog

MyMoloboaccount's comment identified in the motion strikes me as more consistent with certain psychiatric symptoms than with "casting aspersions towards other editors". I would be surprised if MyMoloboaccount's account was objectively truthful, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if that was indeed their subjective experience. I concur with Nug in finding the motion "cruel and unnecessary". I suggest the committee err on the side of AGF and see this as a CIR issue rather than as something worthy of a sanction. Nardog (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Warsaw concentration camp: Clerk notes

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

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

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

@Paul Siebert:, you are over the word count limit of 500. You should reduce the length of your statement or request an extension as detailed at the top of this page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek:, you have only added to the length of your statement which is over your word count limit of 750 words (currently over 1000 words). If it is not trimmed soon it will be reduced to your increased word limit by cutting off the end. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note:Jehochman's section closed per discussion on Clerks-L. Jehochman has been notified. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clerical note: The Committee has decided to suspend this case request for 48 hours, during which time this page should not be edited (except by arbs and clerks). Several editors have removed their statements; consistent with the talk page guidelines, in order to maintain continuity in the discussion, those statements will be restored in a collapsed form. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: @MyMoloboaccount: Just walk away from this MyMoloboaccount, please. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that they have been indeffed by Ymblanter; I was about to hand them a pblock but this stops the disruption I guess. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: The implementation notes are now up-to-date, and the main motion has now been amended as requested. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Support needed
Resolution of this case request (1)	8	7	0	·
Amendment to item 4	9	1	3	·
Amendment to item 7	10	0	3	·
Jehochman	12	1	2	·
Jehochman (alt)	1	10	4	Cannot pass
MyMoloboaccount	8	4	2	·
MyMoloboaccount block	1	10	3	Cannot pass
VolunteerMarek	4	7	3	Cannot pass
VolunteerMarek (alt)	0	11	3	Cannot pass
Levivich	2	6	6	Cannot pass
Piotrus	3	7	2	Cannot pass
Conduct during arbitration proceedings	13	1	1	·
Motion to close	10	0	0	·

Notes

Warsaw concentration camp: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/4/0>

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]

Old replies

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]

Old replies

@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]
@Ealdgyth: if you have evidence of misconduct in this topic area that evidence would definitely be helpful for people to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: I am considering all comments. I have begun to rethink my replying to individual editors as I think it might contribute to some issues that I am seeing at ARC (not just this one, but put into stark relief at this one). That said, a case would allow editors on all sides to have their conduct examined. So would my preferred outcome of some sort of topic area wide AE type enforcement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich I think, no exaggeration, it would take me days to go through User:Levivich/KL Warsaw fully. You say it shows disruption, presumably of the kind that is in scope at ArbCom. Can you construct a brief narrative to show this for one piece of information (or one editor) even if only for 2020 or 2021. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2022 (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]

@Lomrjyo: There is some word smithing happening behind the scenes as we consider some possible alternatives to opening a case. I think we'll probably put a few different motions up and get feedback, but it looks like it will be after the new year. Cases that span committees always take a little more time, given the extra bureaucracy required. Combined with many arbs having been preoccupied with the holidays, we don't want to rush into things. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept: I've thought very long on this matter, and have been on the fence. But our motions don't seem to be the solution. Editors keep fighting this out. Unless we intervene and proclaim some final judgement, even if it is no action, editors are still going to be going at each other's throats, and the topic area will remain radioactive. I think the scope and name should be "Holocaust in Poland". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uneasy about ArbCom as a group closing an RfC. Since RfC closures are meant to reflect community consensus, the community has always had the power to overturn an RfC closure at AN – how would this change if ArbCom directly closed an RfC? Could the community overturn such a closure? If not, wouldn't such an RfC closure just be us setting (unchangeable) policy?
In any event, Nableezy has now closed the RfC (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_181). Would the parties advise whether further ArbCom action is necessary, and if so, what their preferred actions are? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the statements since my last thoughts and am still considering the way forward, but in the meantime I wish to endorse in full Barkeep49's bullet point about Icewhiz. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am reluctantly voting to accept. If this progresses to a full case (rather than a resolution by motion) we will have to carefully define the scope of this case to ensure that it does not become a case about every issue ever, but based on the ongoing problems in this topic area I am convinced that ArbCom action of some kind is necessary. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  NYB is correct that the COIN/policy question is not on the table. The question is whether a broader case is necessary. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Guerillero: I hear your frustration. As you know, ArbCom doesn't have capacity to hear all the AE stuff, but if there are specific AE threads that would particularly benefit from ArbCom review, I would like to know about them when they happen. I can't speak for the rest of the committee, but I would be open to considering some "referrals" from AE admins. There are a few procedural mechanisms for this – for example, we can actually hear appeals when an AE thread is closed with no action (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Dismissing an enforcement request), and I would certainly be open to such an appeal if the AE admins ask for ArbCom review. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 2 January 2022 (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]
My hope was that the motions below would be sufficient to sort out what I hoped was a storm in a teacup. The issue that was raised at the start has been sorted, and our standard sanctions are already available for these areas and as such, I fully agreed with the motion. It seems, however, that the case request has continued and sprawled and morphed since it was first opened, and the participants do not seem to have been mollified by the motion at all. It's clear to me that there isn't a quick fix here, and sorting out this sort of thing is what we're here for. So, I accept this case, with a fairly broad scope of editor behaviour around Polish-Jewish history related WWII. Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, your "did you know" statement (diff) is almost meaningless; Sandstein appears in 195 archives, El C in 68, and Seraphimblade in 114, and those are just three AE admins I pulled off the top of my head. In other words, just because you do a search and find them in an archive does not mean they were the instigator, or even involved, in whatever situation led to their name showing up (hell, I am sure if I looked I could find at least one instance where they were named in passing). If you are going to use pointless arguments, expect them to be ignored. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Jehochman (difff), you claimed that these two individuals appeared X amount of times at AE with zero context, as did I for a different set of individuals. Now that you have added more content (and thus provided that context), your statement is no longer pointless. My "mathematical fallacy" was simply made to illustrate my point. I have no issue with your argument as it stands, but in a venue like this throwaway statements need that context in order for them to have any meaning. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, for what it is worth, I apologise if I came across as "supporting" the assertion that you were only at AE because of issues you were the cause of or involved in. My primary concern was the original statement lacking context for why the information was relevant; the "no issue" comment was more about approval of the additional context added than the argument that it was supporting. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~The above all being said, I know it is still (relatively speaking) early days in this request, and such things to take time to develop and arise, so I consider my opinion to be amenable to adjustment.~~ Primefac (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the absolute nonsense that has pervaded this request the last six hours, with comments that would normally get an editor indeffed in any other forum (and has found me wondering why this has not yet occurred), ~~I find myself convinced to accept this case;~~ clearly there are issues that need to be resolved, and we need to find a way to do so. Per my previous statement, I am still mostly in agreement that the scope should be "Antisemitism in Poland 2" to avoid the personalisation and bickering that would come with a smaller scope, but am concerned at the lack (as NYB has stated below) of any form of evidence that there is actually a case to be made on that wide a scale. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are issues, and they need to be dealt with, but the last 48 hours have been problematic enough that I am not quite comfortable accepting the case as presented; there might be a way to resolve things without a full case though. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AlexEng, regarding the first motion, this is one of multiple that are being workshopped and wordsmithed on arbwiki; it is just the first that was able to be posted. Any "teeth" will come in subsequent motions, but this one in particular is specifically designed to allow us to decline the case while still providing an avenue to return in the near future if necessary; as you can see even in my own comments above, many of the declining arbitrators feel that there might be a case somewhere in here, but not as it is currently presented, and a straight decline would not address that issue. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, with an intended scope of examining behaviour in the Holocaust–WWII–Poland area (effectively Antisemitism in Poland 2). There are sufficient concerns over tendentious editing and sourcing issues that are within ArbCom's purview to examine. While AE is perhaps the more "correct" venue to examine behaviour within the stated scope, the dispute is complex enough where making certain difficult calls is better done within the collective responsibility of ArbCom, rather than by individual admins or small panels of admins at AE. Maxim_(talk) 18:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline After a lot of review, I don't see how an Antisemitism in Poland 2 case could become anything other than a circus. Nableezy's close has settled the immediate question satisfactorily IMO. Szmenderowiecki does a good job of outlining the larger issues here, and they're all ultimately orthogonal to Poland and the Holocaust—that is, we're discussing them in that context now, but there's no reason for them to be inextricably linked. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49, sure. I don't disagree that we're the best venue, and I'll unequivocally state my own position here that this is not "ArbCom isn't going to [ever] handle it". In this request, I see a rehash of the overall antisemitism/Holocaust in Poland issue and the more specific issue of COI regarding editors mentioned in external publications. I think Nableezy's close has addressed the latter, at least for the time being. As for the bigger issue, the continuing conflict we've seen in this area is much more a product of how inherently contentious this is to many editors—not a failure on the part of our current policies and sanctions.

Hmm. I could've just said "per Primefac". --BDD (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Newyorkbrad

My comments, in no particular order:
- When I first saw this dispute, I took it that there was a disagreement as to whether our article on the Warsaw Concentration Camp (KL Warschau) should assert that this place of horror went beyond being a concentration camp, terrible enough as that is, and contained also an extermination camp with a gas chamber in which 200,000 more people were murdered. But I see that this incorrect assertion was removed from the article several years ago, and I don't see anyone arguing to include it.
- A news article describes our prior inclusion of that statement as a long-running hoax on Wikipedia. At this late date, no one can determine whether the statement was added to the article with the intent to perpetrate a hoax on Wikipedia, as opposed to incorporation in Wikipedia of an incorrect or invented report that first appeared elsewhere. Most importantly, I don't see any allegation that any currently active editor deliberately perpetrated the misinformation.
- As a sidenote, this incorrect assertion may be a "hoax" as that term is used elsewhere, but it is not the sort of thing that we usually call a "hoax" in our internal wiki-speak. Although there are exceptions, most of the listings in List of hoaxes on Wikipedia appear to be the work of pranksters, not serious history-distorters. Adding deliberate misinformation in the somber context of our Holocaust-related articles would be a very different issue and part of a very different discussion.
- Discussing the EEML at this late date is not likely to be helpful.
- Discussing who has been mentioned on AE and how often is not helpful, unless accompanied by the citation of specific relevant threads.
- Discussing the conduct of Icewhiz, a WMF-banned user, also is not helpful, except to the extent needed for essential background information.
- There were reasonable arguments on both sides of the COIN thread, which is one reason it went on as long and indecisively as it did. The RfC has now been closed, and while there are very legitimate arguments against the outcome that was reached, it is not typically our role to review those decisions.
- The remaining allegation by the filing party is that editors are currently manipulating the content of Holocaust-related articles for reasons of nationalism. This allegation is extremely serious, but it is not supported by any evidence that has been presented on this page. (The most relevant link that has been presented is to evidence that was presented in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland (2019), which related to the interpretation of a single source, and is more than two years old.)
- As a couple of people have noted, we are a committee of generalists, not of historians. The difficulties of asking ArbCom to resolve disputes on historical articles have been reflected in several cases over the years, including not only Antisemitism in Poland, but also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort (2018) and even as far back as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance (2008). Deliberately including misinformation in the encyclopedia, such as by misstating the content of sources, is user misconduct that the Arbitration Committee has the authority to prevent. But that is a serious accusation, which if made must be supported by evidence of a pattern of misbehavior.
- The decision in Antisemitism in Poland reaffirmed that discretionary sanctions apply to articles about Poland and the Holocaust. I am familiar with the difficulties of our AE process, especially in complicated situations. I've seen AE reports (not necessarily in this topic area) resolved on the basis of which editor might have inadvertently violated 1RR or not, as opposed to deeper issues; the AE admins, whose work we appreciate, are not necessarily any better equipped to resolved historiographical disputes or to discern editors' motivations than we are. But at the moment, at least, we have not been shown in this request that the AE process in this area has been tried and found wanting—or even that there have been major infractions warranting its having been tried.
- I understand and sympathize with the concern that the context of both case requests and actual cases, presentation of relevant evidence has been hamstrung by our word limits. While word limits are an understandable necessity that helps keep statements and evidence focused and limits the arbitrators' reading burden to a reasonable level, when rigidly enforced they can have the effect of cutting the arbitrators off from relevant information and evidence, which in the long run helps no one. This is a concern I've raised before and next year's committee may wish to revisit this subject. (This is not a criticism of the arbitration clerks who help enforce the limits at our request.)
- Bottom line: I'll hold off on voting for another day or two, but leaning decline at this time. If a case is accepted by December 31, I will remain active on it until conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update/Summary: This request has utterly morphed from being basically a request that we close a noticeboard discussion thread, a wiki-internal matter that has now been addressed, into the assertion that we have "a four-alarm emergency" of incompetence and misinformation in one of the world's most sensitive topic-areas. This is asserted more and more emphatically with each passing day, yet still unaccompanied by any specific examples of current or recent problems. The implicit, or now almost explicit, suggestion is that if ArbCom doesn't wade into the situation we will bear responsibility for negative press coverage of our Holocaust content, but that doesn't help me decide an arbitration request. Ealdgyth's statement that she has substantive evidence to offer is of interest, and her comments both that she is away for the holidays and would need well over 500 words are both reasonable enough, but I can't vote to open a case of this magnitude based on potential information we might be presented with at a future time. In the meantime, if there is a four-alarm emergency, then someone should please be able to tell us where specifically the emergency is located and who is allegedly causing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still leaning decline. The issue raised in the original case request has been resolved, the scope of the revised case request that has arisen in its place is vague and sprawling, and still no evidence has been presented to support the most serious allegations. In view of the holiday and the ongoing input from other arbitrators, I'll wait a day or two before casting a final vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just noting that my term as an arbitrator expires today, so I will not be voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've not commented here yet, but have been following this on a daily basis,trying to get some sense of what the case would essentially be about were it accepted. On the question of if it is appropriate for a user to remove a source that mentions them by either their username or real name, that matter has, for the moment, been resolved by "lower" processes, namely WP:COIN, and I thank Nableezy for their detailed, thoughtful comments in making that close. There is no evidence I can see to support framing this as "the second coming of EEML" so I can't accept it on that basis. That leaves "only arbcom can solve this" and basically accepting it as "Antisemitism in Poland 2". This is where I'm stuck. We've not been presented with evidence that the existing sanctions, as modified just a few months ago, have even been tested at WP:AE yet. However, we've also got several user suggesting that the reason the area is relatively quiet is that it is so unpleasant that most users simply want nothing to do with it. That very much is exactly the sort of problem ArbCom is here to resolve, if it can. At this time I have no vote on accepting or declining. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from KrakatoaKatie and Casliber

Accept because, even though this is gonna be an Icewhiz mess, I don't think we should be kicking the can down the road. Let's do it or don't. If it's accepted by the full committee before my term ends, I'll remain active on this case until it's concluded. Katie^talk 17:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accept -my concern is the neutrality of the 'pedia. Right now, I have no idea if the concerted armwrestling is pushing material away or toward Reliability and Neutrality. The long term issues are not able to be dealt with in a regular manner and hence needs to be sorted here. My scope is all editors taking an active role in aforesaid armwrestling. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basing a request on a two-year-old newspaper article, which itself was based on an interview with an arbcom blocked, globally locked, WMF-banned editor strikes me as falling somewhere on a scale between being used as a cat's paw and unthinking WP:PROXYING. I'm disinclined to dance to Icewhiz' tune.
The other incidental issues have either been handled (COIN closed by Nableezy) or should be handled elsewhere (complaints regarding handling of WP:BLPSELF). The objective of a case is unclear except to reiterate AE remedies already in place. I'm veering towards a decline. Cabayi (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to decline for now for two reasons.
1. The case request doesn't show sufficient evidence that pre-ArbCom dispute mechanisms have failed. It looks to me like COIN may have identified a conduct issue, but I assume that conduct issue will be a non-issue going forward now that the COIN discussion is closed; the probable parties are smarter than to go against a noticeboard close, right? I would suggest that if there are further issues on that dimension, AE and AN would be interested to hear about them. Given the mention particularly of the DS in the area and certain editors' proclivities at those forums, I would also be interested in evidence that indicates the likely parties have been to AE/AN but where AE/AN has been unable to resolve some pattern of misbehavior.
2. Besides the lack of stated evidence so far (or at least, of evidence that this dispute is beyond the ability of the community to handle), there is also the apparently unique disinterest made evident by several parties in the past day or two....
In both regards, I do not think this case is ripe for ArbCom at this time. --Izno (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formal decline. Volunteer Marek's check on the disuse of AE seals it for me. (Though I would be interested in 2020 and/or 2019 as well.) --Izno (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I've done the look at AE in 2020 and it mostly matches Marek's look. I get approximately 158 cases at AE, of which 9 cases concerned the topic area either by POL/WW2 or by EE concerning POL: 2 appeals from GizzyCatBella (1 accepted), 4 filed against GizzyCatBella (1 by Astral Leap, no action; other 3 'actioned'), 1 no action filed against Buidhe, 1 against Janj9088 (1 year tban as AE; indeffed as normal admin action), and 1 meritless against Volunteer Marek. --Izno (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VM: With archive numbers, I have for GizzyCatBella 1) a declined appeal (266), 2) an accepted appeal (276), 3) a request where GCB was warned (264), 4) a request where GCB was blocked 72h (268), 5) a request where they were put under a 2-way IBAN with both Notrium and Francois Robere (269), and finally 6) the Astral Leap request with no action (276). Plus the other 3 that are clearly agreed upon (260, 265, 273). That's 9. (The specific quantity of requests is largely nitpicking for the larger discussion of interest given that the values are small or relatively middle-of-the-pack compared to the quantities of requests from different topics areas that AE handles.) --Izno (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - ~~to get us out of Net4 territory & avoid sleepwalking into acceptance. Cabayi (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

- in favour of the motions below. Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline in favor of the motion below. I've been reading along but held off commenting on this request - partly to wait till the new year, partly because I'm ringing in the new term with... the same topic area as the last case I co-drafted two years ago. Which obviously didn't solve the problem, so it seemed like a good place for fresh eyes. I'll be perfectly honest that I think this is likely to come back as a full case. I'm voting to decline this request because I think it's a poor platform for that case - it's seen many shifts in scope since filing, as the COIN thread has been closed, yet little evidence that is recent, concrete, and clearly behavioral (rather than content related). And while arb-stuff around the end of the year does tend to drag on, there has also been some poorly judged commentary and behavior taking place during the request. I'm encouraged by the beginnings of the thread here, and hope content discussions continue in that direction. While it doesn't appear at the moment that this is yet ripe for arbitration, I'd be likely to quickly accept a case in this area if it comes back, especially there's been AE requests in between or AE admins refer it here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to lay-out, addressing some of the concerns expressed by my colleagues above, what we have that would suggest opening a case is appropriate. I am trying to balance comprehensiveness and suncitness but am favoring comprehensiveness:
- We have an area that has been historically contentious and which has demanded a fair amount of Arbitration Committee time in the past. Our first tool to respond to such issues, discretionary sanctions, is in effect and proved ineffective enough that we have had to resort to a secondary tool, content restrictions, which itself has had to be modified a few times. There is a clear, complicated, history here which means it takes time and effort to understand what is going on. ArbCom during a case is uniquely situated in the community to do such work.
- We have evidence from Guerrillero that AE has struggled when presented problems in this topic area. We have no evidence of any uninvolved administrator stating that they are attempting to do what Tony suggests and apply DS. To the contrary, we do have some further administrators who have indicated they have tried DS and thrown up their hands at doing so - El C and Valereee.
- We have the very real harassment, of the worst kind, that continues by a globally banned editor. A case would let us ensure we have all sufficient tools for making sure, as Black Kite (another admin who works AE) implicitly asks, to address that ongoing threat.
- We have public evidence by Eaglydth, extensively documented, that we have extensive content issues in this topic area. Neither she nor any other editor has yet publicly shown that this content issue is the result of misconduct. But we know, from past ArbCom proceedings, that previous content issues were attributable to misconduct and not just the normal ways that Wikipedia content can be wrong. A case would give time and space for analysis of the content to see if there is misconduct to be done by interested editors.
  - I will note that we do have evidence submitted privately that does make this connection. I respect some arbs would not consider that evidence in this case, but I will note its presence for those who do.
- We have first-hand experience that misconduct remains in this topic area. We saw it during this very case request to the extent that some arbs have said something to the effect of "if there was a full case I would be considering a desysop". Whether or not there is a case is something we can control and in fact are deciding right here. Further, while ArbCom is clearly a stressful environment, it is also one where editors generally try to put their best foot forward. If this is what happens when putting the best foot forward, it is an indicator that with the time and space of a case further evidence of misconduct, in the topic area would remain and not just in the discussions linked to in the case opening.
- In the recent ArbCom elections, one issue was whether we should operate more under a rule of law style. Based on the results, the community has decided against that, which is reflected in the opinions of the arbs who were elected (both in that election and the previous one). And so it would hardly be improper for us to define an appropriate scope, something now written into procedures even, rather than saying we must decline because the scope suggested by the initial filer wouldn't allow us to examine the issues laid out above.

I hope some of my colleagues will reconsider their position on this matter and, if they feel that we cannot handle misconduct without a case, vote to accept a case so we can handle the misconduct we know exists, solve the problem others have been unable to, see if there is further misconduct we are not aware of that needs consideration, and reviewing to make sure we have deployed appropriate tools given the misconduct, upto and including vile harassment, in this topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept per my opposition to the motion to resolve and Barkeep's summary above. — Wug·a·po·des 22:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, there's no need to ring any bells – we're doing our best with this mess that we've been given. If you have any constructive ideas on what we should do differently, I'm all ears. I note that in your previous statements you argue that a formal case is not needed, so I'm curious what you would suggest instead. – bradv^🍁 04:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, bureaucratically, to be consistent with my other statements. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Resolution of this case request (1)

This request for arbitration is resolved as follows:

The request for an arbitration case to resolve the issue of a potential conflict of interest as originally posted is declined, as the community has resolved the issue presented.
The request for an arbitration case as subsequently revised to address misconduct in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland is declined at this time, based on the terms of this motion.
Editors are reminded that standard discretionary sanctions and special sourcing restrictions remain in effect for articles relating to the Holocaust in Poland. These provisions are to be interpreted and enforced with the goal of ensuring that Wikipedia's coverage of this important and sensitive topic is fairly and accurately presented based on the most reliable sources available, while maintaining a reasonable degree of decorum and collaboration among editors.
Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. The sanctions and restrictions should be interpreted and enforced so as to promote our content-quality and user-conduct expectations. Enforcement discussions should focus on the accuracy of our articles and the well-being of our editors, not on procedural technicalities beyond those necessary to ensure fairness.
As an alternative to AE, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary to enforce proper conduct in the topic area.
The community, particularly including any editors with subject-matter knowledge who have not previously been active in this topic-area, is urged to carefully review the accuracy and sourcing of our articles on the Holocaust in Poland and related topics, with the goal of identifying and addressing any deficiencies that might exist, and implementing any other improvements that may be possible. Appropriate user-conduct is required during all discussions that are part of any such review.
Editors in good standing who have withdrawn from editing in this topic-area, who are prepared to abide by all the relevant policies and expectations, are invited to return to editing.
Should further alleged misconduct affecting our articles on the Holocaust in Poland take place, or be discovered, a new request for arbitration may be filed. The request for arbitration, and any responses to it, should identify specific instances of misconduct that is affecting the content of or editing environment on these articles. Reasonable extensions of the word limits, where warranted, will be afforded to allow the presentation of relevant and significant evidence. In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue. In the event that an arbitration case is opened, the Committee will give serious consideration to requests to hold part or all of the case in camera.
Editors are reminded that Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits. It may be taken as disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process by repeatedly stating an opinion or with repeated demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained.
Editors participating in Arbitration Committee proceedings are reminded that they are subject to high standards of behavior. Editors are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances must often be aired during proceedings, editors are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations. Accusations of misbehavior must be supported by clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Statements containing private or sensitive information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email and are subject to the arbitration policy's provisions on admissibility of evidence.

For these motions there are 15 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

As amended: 20:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Enacted – Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

With half of the primary participants disengaging, and a lack of diffs that indicate where a problem lies, I just do not see any way that this particular case as requested has anywhere to go. I have no issue with a legible, rational, and well-reasoned case request being made, even if that case request is made tomorrow, but going on a snipe hunt without knowing what it even looks like is rather problematic to me. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With thanks to NYB for drafting this in the final days of his term. See also my comments above, largely along the same lines as Primefac. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the other resolutions now posted, I am comfortable supporting this one. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Primefac. While my gut says there is a problem to address, I do not see how this request translates to a case. I expect that it will be back on our doorstep sometime, though. - Donald Albury 00:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As articulated by Primefac & Donald Albury. Accusations need to be supported by evidence, otherwise they're just personal attacks. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the issues presented in this case request may necessitate opening a case at some point, it is not clear to me what that would accomplish right now, especially with the number of people that appear to have withdrawn themselves from the process. Hopefully these words of advice, carefully crafted by Newyorkbrad prior to his retirement, will allow sanity to prevail. I'd like to especially stress point #6, as these disputes generally get solved by having more editors, not fewer. – bradv^🍁 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The case, as presented, seems unworkable. This whole thing is a mess and this seems the best way out of it. This is not "dismissing with prejudice" and a more coherent and specific case request with better preliminary evidence could very well be accepted in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were a lot of opinions on what this case was. Thanks to NYB for cutting through it and creating a motion. I'll vote on the modifications too - which I am making this support conditional upon. Worm^TT(talk) 16:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to formalize this after voting on the supplementary motions. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

A full case should be opened to examine conduct in the Holocaust in Poland topic area. Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it doesn't appear that the committee is going to make note of any specific misbehavior in this case beyond that of Jehochman. That behavior was definitely the worst, in my opinion, but it was not alone. And so the bst thing I can say about this motion is that the words are empty. empty. Why would anyone read this case and decide to edit in this topic area as we're asking them to? But I actually am concerned the words will not be empty. I don't think in good conscience we should urge editors with subject-matter knowledge who have not previously been active in this topic-area to do what we ask. We're urging, not just asking, urging those editors to accept potential harassment at worst and editors with battleground mentalities at minimum for the good of the encyclopedia. That is not something we should ask of anyone. We would be better of straight declining this case, and merely failing in our responsibility to the community, than to pass this motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Barkeep. Who among us believes things will improve? Multiple arbitrators have stated they believe this issue will be back before us, editors fear harassment, members of the public risk harm from BLP violations, administrators state that they are unwilling to work in this area. How is our project to function between now and whenever the perfect case request comes before us? Szmenderowiecki gives a point-by-point analysis of why this resolution will resolve nothing. In their 3 January statement, Pabsoluterince points out how the present motions seem unlikely to resolve the underlying issues. AlexEng, in their 1 January statement, also points out that our motion will not do anything to actually resolve these concerns the community has brought before us. I haven't seen a statement from the community which suggests they believe this motion will help them at all.
39 editors have been kind enough to opine on this case request, if we do not listen to them now why would they believe we will listen to them next time? Indeed, many editors comment on how they don't believe we listen at all, and if we lose the faith of the community our job becomes harder. Ealdgyth states that previous attempts at arbitration were unsuccessful due to procedural constraints and was kind enough to extensively document alleged sourcing issues which our previous case has not resolved (but like other editors, Ealdgyth states that they doubt we will look too deeply into the concerns). Levivich, a major player in this dispute, outright says he does not file arbitration requests because he does not believe we actually pay attention to the community concerns.
For our focus on the mess caused by some editors, we ignore the largely helpful contributions of the community. Softlavender, in their revised statement (30 December), identifies two main problems that still need resolved following the COIN thread. Powera articulates three potential scopes, one of which is the disruptive nature of sock pupptery allegations, another is article bias which Ealdgyth has provided evidence for. The community has considered and put forward potential scopes which can serve as the foundation for a case if only we would listen. The procedural argument for not accepting a case is that other venues have not been tried or that the identified concerns can be kicked back to AE (the present motion advocates as much), but the community is skeptical of this. In their 4 January statement, El_C, one of our more prolific AE administrators, articulates why AE systematically fails to resolve issues relating to the APL discretionary sanctions; not simply isolated incidents, but explaining why the forum is structurally ill-equipped to handle the Icewhiz problem. For a taste of this, look at the statements by Ermenrich and Calidum. Ermenrich states that they have been driven away from the topic area and that the specter of Icewhiz is used to prevent actual inquiry into misbehavior, a point echoed by Calidum who points out that sockpuppetry allegations are used to dismiss legitimate concerns (see also Powera's 2nd scope idea). Pabsoluterince, in their 26 December statement, sees sufficient evidence that DS procedures are breaking down and advises we accept a case to look at conduct concerns.
And then there are the battleground concerns that go back over a decade. It was a concern in WP:EEML as evidenced by principle 5, and it continued to be a problem in WP:APL as evidenced by FoF 6. Ealdgyth points to an instance in this very case request to demonstrate that "the area is so full of battleground behavior that my statements in this request that never mentioned any editors by name have been turned into me being somehow on one side." This is an issue that two prior committees and the community over multiple years have been unable to resolve. Why should I believe it will be resolved by this motion, or worse, why should I believe the community should continue to be subjected to potential disruption? I believe Valereee sums up the problem nicely: I think this is just exhaustion on the part of the community in trying to deal with this. To me it seems clear that there is counterproductive behavior going on here, and that the community hasn't been able to figure out how to handle it. What have we done to help them?
Yes, the case was started by an administrator proxying for a globally banned user, and we have rightly admonished them, but in the two weeks since the case was started dozens of community members have come to us with broader concerns about how our previous interventions have been at best ineffective and at worst systematic failures. And these are only the public statements and evidence on this request page. The community is exhausted and losing faith in us, editors are leaving, administrators are withholding their labor, the public are writing articles on our failure, and our response is to tell the community "try harder and come back when things get worse". What would "worse" look like? I understand not wanting to vindicate Icewhiz, I said as much on the arbcom-en list a few days ago, but our first duty is to the community. Our decisions should be based on the question "What is best for the community" not "What most frustrates people expelled from our community." I believe we are smart enough to find ways around Icewhiz while still fulfilling our duty to the community. — Wug·a·po·des 21:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many words but nothing said. I don't see how this is any better than straight up declining. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still agree with the motion in principle, but am moving to oppose as I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Substantially in agreement with Barkeep49. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the well-written comments by Barkeep49 and Wugapodes, and because I did say I'd focus on harassment in my candidate statement. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments

For the record, this was originally proposed by Newyorkbrad over email but word-smithing took time over the holiday period. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, big thanks to NYB for the parting gift. Both on and off-wiki, NYB continued to question what the possible scope of the case could be, and, perhaps even more compelling, where was the evidence? Where are the diffs? It would be highly unusual for the committee to accept case without a clear idea of the scope and with almost zero evidence of an ongoing, persistent problem. I'm still going over the details and possibly some other motions, but I'll probably be supporting this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot support this motion at the moment. There was behavior during this case which is outside the bounds of acceptable behavior and if we do nothing it condones that action. I am working on drafting some potential accompanying motions on the behavior of specific editors (some of which I anticipate voting against but which deserve consideration) that would enable me to support this motion in combination. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can support resolving this case by motion, but I also do not think this motion goes far enough currently. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Together with the supplemental motions, I think this is as good as we're going to do. I therefore expect to support this alongside the supplemental motions, with thanks for all who have worked on them. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we're not passing the individual motions, I am not convinced that we're doing enough here. I am not sure if the two amendments below will get me out of the oppose range, but I'm still considering. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Barkeep, the conduct during this case request fell well below the standard we expect. I will wait on voting until some of those other motions are put up. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expect to support the motion, but will hold off until Barkeep's accompanying motions can be considered. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parking here while email discussion continues. I'm leaning oppose, following the same reasoning as the existing well-written opposes. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment to item 4

Item 4 of #Motion: Resolution of this case request (1) is amended as follows:

4. Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. The sanctions and restrictions should be interpreted and enforced so as to promote our content-quality and user-conduct expectations. Enforcement discussions should focus on the accuracy of our articles and the well-being of our editors, not on procedural technicalities beyond those necessary to ensure fairness.

As an alternative to AE, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary to enforce proper conduct in the topic area.

Enacted - –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

With thanks to Guerillero for the idea. The community has identified problems with reporting at AE, and one problem that's hard for the community to resolve is the issue of sock puppetry biasing discussions. As Arbitrators, we have access to the checkuser tool, so we can more easily watch for and respond to this type of disruption better than many admins patrolling AE. By hearing these enforcement requests, we can hopefully use our tools to help mitigate disruption of discussions by sock puppets. As Izno and Volunteer Marek point out, the AE case load in this topic area is relatively light and so I don't expect this to become a serious burden on the committee. At the very least, if we won't open a case, it highlights another avenue by which we can help the community resolve issues in the mean time. — Wug·a·po·des 05:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw this I thought it would be a flood at what is often our slowest venue. Thanks to VM and Izno for looking into the numbers. This seems reasonable to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While noting that ARCA is usually the slowest possible way short of a full case to get a resolution, this seems worth trying. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from some of the comments here, there are a few issues that are ripe for intervention, but not much of a desire to bring them to AE. Offering ARCA as an alternative should help ArbCom stay closer to this topic area, while hopefully handling issues in more manageable chunks than this case request. – bradv^🍁 20:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred to the original wording. A case remains my preferred choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thought this was a good idea when it was first emailed out, and I still think so. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I would prefer issues to be tried at AE first as in item 7 and subsequently be referred if the uninvolved admins are unable to decide a specific request; despite the claim that the reason the number of AE cases is low-middling is because no-one is interested, that cannot be asserted from the numbers provided, and certainly not proven regardless (because that would be a negative). Never mind the practicalities L235 questions. But take this as mild opposition I guess, since the access to CU would be useful. --Izno (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

ARCA is sometimes even slower than a full case! But I won't stand in the way. I hope people won't be bringing us routine enforcement requests. And questions remain: what standards will we be using to determine the ARCAs? Will they be resolved by motion, or will we apply AE procedures (an arbitrator takes AE action in their individual capacity)? And will sanctions imposed be appealable only to the full committee? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. However, I fully agree that ARCA is an option for anyone not willing to go to AE. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a practical point, yes I do quite like encouraging that intractable issues be heard at ARCA. But given that I dislike the motion writ large, I can't possibly support it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

Amendment to item 7

Item 7 of #Motion: Resolution of this case request (1) is amended as follows:

7. Should further alleged misconduct affecting our articles on the Holocaust in Poland take place, or be discovered, a new request for arbitration may be filed. The request for arbitration, and any responses to it, should identify specific instances of misconduct that is affecting the content of or editing environment on these articles. Reasonable extensions of the word limits, where warranted, will be afforded to allow the presentation of relevant and significant evidence. In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue. In the event that an arbitration case is opened, the Committee will give serious consideration to requests to hold part or all of the case in camera.

Enacted - –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

This amendment incentivizes administrators to begin or return to enforcing APL discretionary sanctions by giving them a clear and expedient route for escalating concerns. It helps the committee too, as issues escalated to us by a consensus of administrators are likely ripe for arbitration. The prior consideration by enforcing administrators will hopefully allow us to skip the debates around prior dispute resolution or evidentiary standards and instead focus on more productive aspects of how to help the community resolve the identified issue. — Wug·a·po·des 06:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to feel like we need a motion to propose a motion to amend the motion to... it's motions all the way down. Anyway, this also makes sense, as above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 15:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget, I should note that this is a new way of doing things, and if it doesn't work (say, if ARCA is just categorically worse than AE) I would vote to rescind this provision. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on item 4. Even if requests are sent to AE, administrators should be able to forward them to ARCA. – bradv^🍁 20:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to support this one. --Izno (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred to the original wording. A case remains my preferred choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enterprisey (talk!) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. However, I fully agree that ARCA is an option for anyone not willing to go to AE. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is good, I think ARCA should be hearing more matters. But given that I dislike the motion writ large, I can't possibly support it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

Supplemental motions

This is intended to supplement a motion declining the case and making any other general remedies, points, or reminders. For purposes of these motions reminded, warned, and admonished constitute three levels of severity from reminded (mildest) to admonished (most severe). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman

Jehochman (talk · contribs) is admonished for behavior during this case request which fell short of the expectations for administrators and for the behavior of all editors participating in an Arbitration Committee proceeding. Specifically, Jehochman proxied for a globally banned harasser by posting on their behalf a denial of harassment and unsupported claims of collusion among editors in this topic area [142] and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage [143]. The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that Jehochman has since apologized for these comments and has since been desysopped at his request. [144]

Enacted – Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Each of these comments were out of bounds on their own and taken together would be enough for me to consider supporting desysop, even with no further issues. However, I am willing to accept the apology in combination with this admonishment as appropriate rather than considering a boomerang case. But I have zero patience for anyone who will further the harassment campaign of a globally banned editor in this way. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First choice (among the Jehochman motions). KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very distant second choice to the desysop. Beeblebrox (talk)
Per Barkeep. — Wug·a·po·des 22:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman's comments and behavior helped turn this into a bonafide three ring circus. Not happy. However, Jehochman seems to realize his mistakes, and I believe this serves as an ample reminder of the responsibilities of adminship, at all times. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep. --Izno (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep. - Donald Albury 00:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman is guilty of being gullible and a busybody, which is a bad combination. If he'd been intentionally platforming Icewhiz in order to perpetuate harassment, I'd obviously be in favor of stronger sanctions, not limited to desysop. But this appears to be a blunder, and at this point the best path forward is IMO getting this whole mess off our highly visible pages and ending the distraction ultimately created by a banned user. As for Maxim's point, I think that's the right analysis for the desysop proposal, but an admonishment purely for conduct that occurred in the case request itself, which everybody reading this page could see, doesn't seem to require further inquiry. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
per Opabinia. Taking a wikibreak during a storm of his own making does not appear to me consistent with his responsibilities. I'd be happier if the admonition had more heft (recording it in the block log by way of a one minute block?) but desysopping seems too much. Support this option as the most reasonable available. Cabayi (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With emphasis on the fact that this motion is based entirely on Jehochman's actions in this case request. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Substandard behaviour during a case request is something the committee has a duty to address, regardless of whether a full case is opened. – bradv^🍁 18:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support this admonishment. Worm^TT(talk) 16:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enterprisey (talk!) 08:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The motion effectively makes findings of fact and offers remedies without having gone through a full case structure, for a complex situation that merits a careful and measured examination. Maxim_(talk) 00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

The outcome here with regard to Jehochman is settled, absent some extraordinary development, and I do not oppose it. --BDD (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. My previous opinion has not changed however. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators: @Cabayi: That's an interesting idea. I don't know about as a one-off, but giving admonishments a little more weight as a general practice could work. On the other hand it might just make the "block log is a list of your sins" problem worse. Something to think about for sure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]; I will also note this elsewhere for arb attention but I think I've made what will be a non-controversial change to this motion noting that Jeh has since given up administrator. The change is underlined above. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman (alt)

Jehochman (talk · contribs) is desysopped for behavior during this case request which fell short of the expectation for administrators and for the behavior of all editors participating in an Arbitration Committee proceeding. Specifically, Jehochman proxied for a globally banned harasser by posting on their behalf a denial of harassment and unsupported claims of collusion among editors in this topic area [145] and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage [146]. The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that he has since apologized for these comments. Within six months of this motion, Jehochman may request that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to examine and challenge the desysopping. He may also apply to have the administrator toolset reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.

Support

I believe a long-term examination of Jehochman's behavior will show this is indeed part of a pattern of strongly taking on a position and championing it, only to suddenly abandon it when enough people disagree. His behavior during this case has been abysmal, and while I do believe he is sorry he did some of the things he did, I don't think it is for the same reason the rest of us wish he hadn't done those things. I simply cannot trust a user who willingly proxies for a user subject to both an arbcom ban and an office ban to be a competent administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I know some other arbs are going to expound on some procedural problems with this, which I respect. For me I find the apology enough, combined with the lack of evidence of this being a pattern of the kind we would see during a typical WP:ADMINCOND case, to suggest this unacceptable conduct will not be repeated and thus a desysop is unnecessary. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While there may be desysop-worthy issues, I think we can afford to do a proper inquiry first and then decide on whether a desysop is appropriate. I'm uncomfortable summarily removing advanced permissions without the procedural safeguards of a proper case or without following our established procedures for expedited removal. — Wug·a·po·des 22:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman's behavior definitely fell below the standard. But I think a desysop would go too far, especially on the basis of proxying for Icewhiz. Icewhiz is an insidious and highly effective manipulator. While I think it was a definite lack of judgement on Jehochman's part to listen to Icewhiz, Icewhiz's considerable abilities to bend events to his liking should not be overlooked. Plus, I agree with Wug that we shouldn't be de-sysopping except in full cases or emergencies. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wugs. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments at previous motion. Maxim_(talk) 00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite ready to desysop Jehochman over this incident, as he did apologize. - Donald Albury 00:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm (one of) the "other arbs" Barkeep mentioned with a procedural concern, which I mentioned as these were being drafted - procedures and paperwork are not one of my strengths, but having thought it over, I'm still unconvinced. It doesn't make sense to respond to someone requesting a case by effectively invoking a WP:LEVEL2-like process in which... that same person can request a case. I agree with Beeblebrox that my impression of Jehochman's involvement in dispute resolution is a pattern of stirring up drama without sufficient information - but that's my impression, based on my own memory and experience, not as a result of a deliberate fact-finding process that may yet prove me wrong. We haven't had that process, so I'm not going to support sanctioning someone on that basis. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Desysop is a step too far, but not by so much as anyone would wish. Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Jehochman has already apologized for his errors in judgement here, this is unnecessary. And I wouldn't ordinarily support a motion like this without a full case. – bradv^🍁 18:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I oppose this motion - it is for procedural reasons and without prejudice of a full case being opened on the behaviour of Jehochman. Removal of sysop userright should either follow a Level I or Level II process, or be part of a case. It is worth noticing that Jehochman has apologised, and withdrawn statements, which should be taken into account, but equally if there is a long term pattern of similar behaviour it should be looked at. Worm^TT(talk) 17:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, but echoing WTT. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

I cannot support a desysop in this instance, mainly due to the procedural issues mentioned in the comments below. However, I am concerned about a number of issues regarding this case request and the lead-up to it, and (with proper evidence) would not be opposed to potentially opening a case evaluating the appropriateness of Jehochman keeping their adminship. In other words, much like this request as a whole I think there is a case to be made, but this is not it. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wugapodes, Eek, and Primefac; whether I comment here or in the oppose column won't make much difference. I trust that Jehochman has gotten the message. --BDD (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Primefac. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. My previous opinion has largely not changed, except to note that Jehochman has resigned while these motions were ongoing and so a case specifically around a pattern of behaviour would likely be declined unless egregious. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

Just to be clear, while I do think it could be established that there is a pattern of behavior here, my support for a desysop is based on Jehochman's behavior during this case request. He quite willingly let himself be led around by the nose by a serial harasser who very recently nearly succeeded in getting admin permissions for a sock account. Having narrowly failed to do that, he used Jehochman to further his goals. An admin should know better. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm kind of astounded at the opposition here. Jehochman willingly let a banned user and serial harasser just tell him what to do. It was only when arbs started voting to accept the case because of exactly that behavior that he was suddenly so very sorry for having done it. It's not like it's some closely held secret that Icewhiz is a vindictive troll and serial harasser of Wikipedians, if he was able to "charm" Jehochman into doing his bidding barely two months after he managed to almost get an admin sock going, that's Jehochman's fault in it's entirety. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  We shouldn't desysop someone without either 1) a full case, or 2) one of the two emergency procedures applying (they don't). That's the bare minimum. If you're voting to desysop Jehochman, I think you should also be voting to open a full case rather than supporting these myriad motions. Do you want to open a full case about Jehochman, starting with this case request? Just from a practical standpoint, this case doesn't seem like the right vehicle—with its scope issues—to do that, but maybe the pro-case folks can make an argument to include the behavior on the request as part of the scope. Izno (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  You're not wrong. This case, as presented, is a turkey. I just can't see how it would even work, but I do feel that Jehochman's actions deserve review. However, I must also acknowledge that this case request maybe isn't the proper vehicle for such an examination, and clearly I'm right on the edge of facing an absolute majority in opposition to the outcome I've supported here. . Perhaps some other opportunity to examine this issue will present itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MyMoloboaccount

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs) is warned against casting aspersions towards other editors [147]. This warning should be considered as a sanction for the purposes of awareness in the topic areas of Eastern Europe and the Holocaust in Poland.

Enacted – Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I feel a bit uneasy doing this to someone who is clearly experiencing some health issues. But those very health issues can't be used in a way I find cruel towards other editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep. --Izno (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 22:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since Molobo seems to desire a return to editing, this is a relevant and necessary action. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Prefer full case instead of motions. Maxim_(talk) 00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, and under the circumstances, could be withdrawn without issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming I still oppose both. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~A moot point, and~~ one which I am honestly not sure needed to be made in the first place. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No longer moot, but I still see little point to this. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moot, given their departure from the project. – bradv^🍁 18:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reconfirming my oppose here. It makes no sense to sanction a user account that no longer exists. – bradv^🍁 23:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)~~ They've apparently changed their mind about leaving forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per Bradv. — Wug·a·po·des 20:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Abstain: ~~The issue is moot. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)~~ No longer moot. Cabayi (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]; ~~Moot. - Donald Albury 00:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~ No longer moot. I need to ponder this. - Donald Albury 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]; ~~BDD (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]; ~~Moot, not worth pursuing. Worm^TT(talk) 17:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. However, this is clearly no longer moot. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the general sentiment, but I feel that supporting this motion would be somewhat unfair. MyMoloboaccount isn't the only person in this case request to claim that other editors caused them to have health problems, but MyMoloboaccount is the only one being told not to do it again. I agree that editors should avoid those kinds of accusations, and MyMoloboaccount has certainly not shown the best conduct in this case request, but if we're going to say a certain kind of conduct is over the line, it should be over the line for everyone. — Wug·a·po·des 21:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

I'd just point out that this user has just more or less asked for an indef block, and gotten it. [148] Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MyMoloboaccount block

The current indefinite block of MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs) is to be assumed by the committee and converted to an {{Arbcomblock}}. Any appeal must be made to the committee.

Support

Symbolic I guess, but I think that Molobo's conduct regarding their vanishing, including private evidence, should not be a burden the community bears. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I'm fine leaving this one with the community given the nature of this particular disruption. --Izno (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overkill regardless of full case or motions. Maxim_(talk) 00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly for procedural reasons. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to turn it into a self-requested block, as that's what it was. – bradv^🍁 18:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Moot. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)~~ No longer moot. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 20:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still opposed, I think the community is capable of handling the block-unblock situation here. — Wug·a·po·des 21:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bradv, but yes, moot. --BDD (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing about the block which Arbcom needs to take on. It can be appealed at its current level without Arbcom intervention. Cabayi (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 14:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

~~The issue is moot. Cabayi (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)~~ No longer moot. Cabayi (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Moot. - Donald Albury 00:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~ No longer moot, changing to support. - Donald Albury 14:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Moot, not to be pursued. Worm^TT(talk) 17:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. This is no longer moot however. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enterprisey (talk!) 08:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

Seems like since the block was for disruption here in arbspace it may make sense for the committee to assume the block. I figured it should at least be on the table. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not opposed, per se, but I don't see the value. I don't think we're any better equipped to handle an unblock request than the community is. — Wug·a·po·des 22:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Editor has left the project so who "owns" the block is even less important. — Wug·a·po·des 20:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VolunteerMarek

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) is warned for their behavior during this case request and in the COIN thread which precipitated it. Specifically, Volunteer Marek cast aspersions at other editors, failed to assume good faith, and bludgeoned discussions (e.g. [149] [150]). This warning should be considered as a sanction for the purposes of awareness in the topic areas of Eastern Europe and the Holocaust in Poland.

Support

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. --Izno (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enterprisey (talk!) 08:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Prefer full case instead of motions. Maxim_(talk) 00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maxim that substantive sanctions belong as part of a case with a fact-finding process, not a mini-PD [proposed decision] in motion format. I just disagree on whether we should actually do that process now, on the basis of this particular request. (The first Jehochman motion is the exception, as it's based on behavior on the request itself, not on evidence from elsewhere.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with reprimanding people by motion for their behaviour during the case request, but if these sorts of remedies are required we should be opening a full case. – bradv^🍁 18:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly per Opabinia regalis; nothing in this case request is enough for me to merit a formal warning of their conduct. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per OR/Primefac. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Per OR. Brad. Worm^TT(talk) 17:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Per Primefac, - Cabayi (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

— Wug·a·po·des 20:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 00:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. My previous opinion has not changed however. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

Opabinia regalis, you can sell me on your point in the context of the other motions (as written anyway), but this specific motion both mentions and points to specific behavioral concerns on this case request, which would be consistent about your point with Jehochman. Would dropping the earlier behavior from it sway you? --Izno (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While VM's contributions here haven't exactly been the picture of patience and civility, dinging him for "failing to assume good faith" when there was in fact a bad-faith actor behind the scenes seems excessive. From the third diff linked above, the one linking to a case-page post - arguably two bad-faith outside actors. My preference is to skip the rest of the user-specific motions for the time being, on the expectation that the editors involved will take the feedback they're getting on board or find themselves back here in short order. I think there's a misconception in some of the comments that not swinging a banhammer is "doing nothing", as if we're just talking to ourselves for the hell of it and the editors involved aren't reading it too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, ok. Izno (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VolunteerMarek (alt)

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. This topic ban is based on Volunteer Marek's past warnings [151] and behavior during this case request and the COIN thread which precipitated it – specifically, Volunteer Marek cast aspersions at other editors, failed to assume good faith, and bludgeoned discussions (e.g. [152] [153]).

Support

Oppose

Going through VM's diffs at this case showed conduct that was frustrated but within the realm of behavioral expectation for over a week. That, combined with what I believe to be sincere comments of being largely disengaged from the topic area are enough to oppose this despite the demonstrated pattern of issue in this area. It is, I hope, in the past. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer full case instead of motions. Maxim_(talk) 00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As above. – bradv^🍁 18:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like several of these motions are sort of like having a full case, just without the evidence phase. A lack of upfront evidence was one of the primary reasons several of us declined to hear the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Beeblebrox; we should not be topic-banning someone due to their conduct here unless it is extremely problematic (which it is not). Primefac (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as worried about the procedural angle as some of my colleagues, but this is indeed rather stiff for a simple motion. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~This could be applied by an uninvolved admin as a DS, but should not be applied by the committee without a case - for good reason. Worm^TT(talk) 17:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Per OR comments. --Izno (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without a full case, I don't think this point can be accurately decided. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

— Wug·a·po·des 20:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 00:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. My previous opinion has not changed however. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

I am tempted to support based on the repeated warnings from El C over a sustained period of 2 years as well as the recent behavior. --Izno (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich

Levivich (talk · contribs) is reminded against accusing editors of behavior similar to that of the Eastern European Mailing List without current evidence of private off-wiki coordination in the topic area.

Support

The behavioral concerns Levivich are concerned about can be expressed in other ways without referring back to a case from more than 12 years. In fact he has done so between the time I posted these and have voted on this ([154]). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the balance, I think I land here. I see where CaptainEek is coming from, but on the other hand, I'm definitely more in the "unless you need to bring up a case from a decade ago because it specifically concerns the facts of that entire case, you probably shouldn't" camp. This request, although it retains some of the same faces, doesn't have all of them and doesn't have the aspect that I'm primarily taking from this motion regarding the off-wiki coordination. Accordingly, a reminder feels reasonable. --Izno (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Given that this happened on the case request, and I do read it as suggesting an EEML II - I would remind Levivich that such claims require evidence. Worm^TT(talk) 17:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose

Editors shouldn't be bandying about unsupported accusations. But I read Levivich's comments as merely invoking EEML, not suggesting there is some kind of EEML II: Electric Boogaloo. I think mentioning EEML was reasonable enough. There are the same participants, in a similar topic area. Plus, I think this remedy is weirdly specific. I somewhat doubt there will be a future moment where Levivich will be bringing EEML up in that sort of context. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer full case instead of motions. Maxim_(talk) 00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it's oddly specific. I think it's fair to say that anyone who shows up in a dispute resolution forum talking about a case from 2009 had better have some really good evidence that there's a connection. Bad credit ages faster than that! But I don't see that an Official Reminder is necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with this, but I don't think the behaviour rises to the level of requiring a motion apart from a case. – bradv^🍁 19:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment below. — Wug·a·po·des 00:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but not too strongly. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 00:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly not sure what this is supposed to do. Primefac (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. My previous opinion has not changed however. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

I don't disagree with this, I'm just not a big fan of remedies that don't actually do anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me neither. --Izno (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had concerns about the specificity of this remedy, and as I look into it more, my concerns only grow. I have a less charitable reading of Levivich's statement than CaptainEek, but I think Levivich's wider allegation is reasonable: conduct issues involving the named parties are long-standing and unresolved despite multiple documented attempts at prior dispute resolution (the core question of a case request). We have as named parties two editors who have previously been named parties in arbitration cases relating to this topic area; I think it is reasonable to mention those cases when discussing whether prior resolution has worked. The EEML case was not merely a revelation that some secret mailing list existed. It had principles and findings of fact relating to on-wiki conduct that was inappropriate regardless of the off-wiki coordination. Whether that conduct continues, regardless of off-wiki correspondence, is certainly a question for this committee. In considering the motion regarding desysopping Jehochman, we debate whether there is a sufficient pattern of behavior to justify sanction; if a case were opened to consider issues of tag-team edit warring (EEML FoF 10.1; c.f. Levivich's mention of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia's first and second edit war, and the slow-motion edit war over the Haaretz footnote mentioned in the COIN thread that precipitated this request) or canvassing (EEML FoF 10B; c.f. Piotrus' 2021 TBAN for canvassing placed by El_C and mentioned, without diff, by Levivich), would our analysis of whether a pattern of conduct existed include or omit that evidence? Reading through the EEML case, I have two main problems with how this motion characterizes it:
- The motion implies that the only possible "behavior similar to that of the Eastern European Mailing List" is "private off-wiki coordination in the topic area", but this ignores the importance of principles 4 (Canvassing), 5 (Not a battleground), and 6 (Gaming the system);
- The motion does not define what "current evidence" looks like, but implies a definition (direct rather circumstantial) more stringent than that of EEML's principle 8.

With that in mind, I don't see how Levivich's invocation of EEML in this case request is somehow beyond what is acceptable discourse for a case request (and absent clarification, I read this motion as relating specifically to conduct in this case request). The guidelines on case request statements say that statements should "illustrate specific instances of the problem...show that prior dispute resolution has already been attempted...[and] be a summary of the available evidence including enough information to show why Arbitration is needed." (see also, Isaac's statement where he states the purpose is to "present a full account of all details[, ...] describe the scope of the problem[,] and the attempts to resolve it by the community"). To me, Levivich's statement, including reference to EEML, is within those bounds which define a useful request statement. Outside a request, references to EEML may well be inappropriate per WP:ASPERSIONS, but like Bradv, I have reservations about sanctioning conduct that occurred outside this case request while simultaneously declining a case.

The core allegations I get from Levivich's statement (whether Levivich's allegations are true is for a case to resolve) are that issues with these two editors are long standing with documented history of tendentious editing (via canvassing, battleground conduct, or tag teaming) going back variously and sporadically to at least the EEML case which first documented and tried to resolve these issues. The present motion ignores that wider context of EEML's invocation, and to me the motion implies that EEML may never be brought up unless some undefined kind or quality of evidence is presented no matter how relevant the case may be to subsequent arbitration. In my reading of this motion, the underlying interpretation of the EEML case is far too narrow, and I believe inconsistent with the actual record. I would need significant clarification before supporting a reminder that to me only seems to confuse the point. — Wug·a·po·des 00:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is reminded not to bludgeon discussions as in the COIN thread which precipitated this case.

Support

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not thrilled by Piotrus's WP:BLUDGEONing. The topic area, as well as ARC, are made more toxic by bludgeoning, and I think that is a main reason why so many editors have fled from the topic area, and grow ever more hesitant to post at ARC. EditedCaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per CaptainEek. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Prefer full case instead of motions. Maxim_(talk) 00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on the VM motion above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on the VM motion above. – bradv^🍁 19:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain the lone supporter of the desysop motion above, this feels different. One is about what happened right here, on this page, the other is basically what we might have done if the case had been accepted. I can't support that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point has been made. No one should bludgeon any discussion. Piotrus should heed advice, like Barkeep's below, that sometimes less is more. No need to make this formal step. --BDD (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Bludgeoning, yes, but not for an arbcom motion without a case. Worm^TT(talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
I am convinced by OR's comment regarding that the behavior cited was at the prior discussion. --Izno (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per BDD. - Cabayi (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Donald Albury 00:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. My previous opinion has not changed however. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

@Piotrus: replying to your ping and questions here because there's not a better place to do it:

The comments referenced were submitted directly to the committee. Hopefully Jehochman will do so in a public manner when he starts editing again because we're not the parties harmed by these actions.
I am saddened by what has transpired with Molobo. Given their first request to delete their account I thought there a chance they would not even see the remedy but obviously that's not what happened and I noted my mixed feelings in even posting it. At the same time nobody, not even a victim of harassment, has carte blanche to turn outward towards third parties and blame them for some pretty weighty stuff in this case a serious medical outcome and loss of job. Bottomline is I hope Molobo gets the help they need and this is one I will be thinking on for quite some time.
Thanks for your openness to consider this feedback. I'm certainly willing to have a longer conversation via email about it, but I will just note that bludgenoning can happen because of many smaller replies or a few longer ones. You and I are often comprehensive - others might say longwinded - in our writing. For me this means I have to carefully monitor how often I participate in a discussion and sometimes even when I have more to say just not say it having faith that my previous comments will be read and considered. So I would say it's not just an asbolute number of replies but also their length which can contribute to disruptive editing through bludgeoning.

Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to express concern about bludgeoning by Piotrus, it would be in the RFC at reliability of Wikipedia rather than what was at COIN. --Izno (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct during arbitration proceedings

Editors participating in Arbitration Committee proceedings are reminded that they are subject to high standards of behavior. Editors are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances must often be aired during proceedings, editors are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations. Accusations of misbehavior must be supported by clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Statements containing private or sensitive information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email and are subject to the arbitration policy's provisions on admissibility of evidence.

Enacted - –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support

This is the crux of why the supplemental motions as a group are necessary. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support amending Motion: Resolution of this case request (1) to include this as a bulletpoint. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, regardless of where else I fall. It could also be incorporated as Barkeep suggests. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This case request was a circus of ridiculous behavior. I think we may need to change some of our procedures to give the clerks broader authority to reign in this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above. I will note that this does fit into both the tone and substance of the main proposal, so I would have no issue with merging this in as either #9 or replacing #8 with this wording. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kevin's comment below. I'd be fine rolling this into the larger case resolution motion. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arb processes work in large part because they are structured and civil. ArbCom should not tolerate deviance from the high standard. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Primefac. --Izno (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support this general reminder, as opposed to the editor-specific proposals. Which does not mean I endorse the behavior involved, only that I think it's best to put this whole mess to bed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA are core expectations, not optional extras. Cabayi (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's add this to the main motion as point #9. – bradv^🍁 19:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Primefac, Opabinia regalis, and Cabayi. - Donald Albury 23:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Absolutely. Worm^TT(talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Enterprisey (talk!) 08:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Agree with the spirit of the motion, but again, would prefer to hear a full case. Maxim_(talk) 00:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

I believe nothing short of a full case is sufficient. As I am opposing the main motion, I feel I should abstain from all modifications. My previous opinion has not changed however. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

I currently expect to support most of the supplemental motions as written. But let me expand on my thoughts a bit: there are clearly some users who have been disruptive in the underlying topic area who are not sanctioned in these motions. These motions are more narrowly tailored to conduct that happened during this case request and the accompanying COIN thread, which is an important function: the community deserves to know that we do not condone misconduct in arbitration proceedings. The motions aren't designed to sanction misconduct in the topic area more broadly. The fact that we're not sanctioning any particular person in these motions should not be considered our endorsement of their actions; admins and the community are free to enact sanctions for disruptive conduct whether or not by the users named here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wise for everyone, especially the editors mentioned in the motions even if they're not passed, to carefully examine their own contributions to the obvious unpleasantness in this topic area. In particular, while I opposed formal sanctions, the bludgeoning of discussions and the habits of making many individual back-and-forth replies are clearly a recurring characteristic of this dispute. I don't remember the case now, but there was a remedy awhile back along the lines of 'two comments per thread on this topic'. Maybe two is a little restrictive, but five should do it. Participants should consider giving themselves a personal five-post limit in the same conversation - beyond that point you're not persuading anyone.
I understand the point made above by a couple of admins that declining the case feels like passing the buck back to AE, but I think this request is just not going to work as a jumping-off point for a structured inquiry. We didn't end up putting it formally in the motion, but IMO a case would likely be expeditiously accepted on this topic area if referred from AE. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Enacted – Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Proposed. I believe we can do this by net 4, as with a case, and the clerks can enact the motions and remove this request after 24 hours. – bradv^🍁 17:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this case is not resolving in the manner I think best. But since I am unaware of any arbs reconsidering their support of the motion to close the case and keeping this open longer is doing no one any good, I support closing it. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is passing or failing. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, time to move on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 15:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enterprisey (talk!) 05:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The final MyMoloboaccount proposal has its 8 votes. I've undone MyMoloboaccount's vanishing in light of his return. All good to wrap it up now. Cabayi (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

Clerks, please amend the main motion as specified (without the change tracking formatting). #Conduct during arbitration proceedings can be added to the main motion as point #9. Any other supplemental motions that pass should be separate. – bradv^🍁 17:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that one motion (MyMoloboaccount) could still go either way. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy about the imposition of never approved rules

Initiated by Scia Della Cometa (talk) at 12:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Scia Della Cometa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Checco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Autospark (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 Scia Della Cometa

Unfortunately, I am here to seek arbitration for the resolution of a dispute that has lasted for six months (the arbitation was recommended to me in this thread). The List of political parties in Italy contains several rules which have never been approved by the community, but which were introduced by a single user (Checco). A compromise would have been found on some rules, but some rules are the result of his singular point of view. I premise that no party list has rules for inclusion, let alone rules that have never been approved in advance by consensus. All attempts to involve other users in the discussion have failed, as have all attempts to reach a compromise for the overall approval of the criteria. Wikipedia:DRN also failed due to low participation of Checco.

The user Checco claims that these rules have been approved by several users, but this is not the case, the only one intervening in support of these rules is a user little involved with Italian politics, Autospark (presumably the two users also communicate outside Wikipedia, since I've already seen similar proposals from Checco, and this behavior doesn't seem quite transparent to me). I asked other users' opinion on the current rules, but no one intervened, not even for general support, so it is difficult to say that there is an established consensus. Rather, there is an established disinterest.

Since the article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale, I think it's unfair that its content should be authorized by a single user. This is not the case with any other party list. Basically, I am asking if it is legitimate for a user to be imposing rules that he unilaterally introduced, which have not received comunity support and which have been challenged by a user who would be seriously interested in editing the page to improve it. In my view, if there are rules agreed by the community in the future, they could be reintroduced. Until then, it would be better to remove them, since they reflect a minority and contested point of view.

I find that it is basically contrary to the principles of Wikipedia the behavior of a user who claims the right to decide which rules are good for the page and which are not, because no user can arrogate the right to decide for himself the rules of such an important page. I hope someone can solve this issue and state whether this behavior is legitimate or not...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: I have good reason to think that you and Autospark are communicating outside Wikipedia, he always intervenes in discussions after you and only to support your position, in any context, it seems to me a strange coincidence. With your "all or nothing" reasoning you continue to confirm your attitude: you are the one you that concedes me something, when instead in Wikipedia the rules should be the result of a discussion. A discussion that doesn't exist: neither in en.Wikipedia (where is it?) nor in it.wikipedia (where the list has no rules; moreover the decisions of it.twikipedia are worth nothing here).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa To find an overall compromise with the other user, in six months I opened more discussions, I asked for Rfc, third opinions and DRN. All failed. Isn't arbitration the last resort?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I am always open to dialogue and compromise. I just want the rules to be the expression of as large a number of users as possible. So far Checco has tried to block the dialogue on certain rules, if someone proposes to mediate, he is welcome on my part.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I can make a new request to Drn myself. My main interest is to have a greater involvement of other users and other opinions, so if the decline to the request for arbitration would be useful to open a new participatory discussion, I could still be satisfied.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Checco

The number of political parties in Italy is virtually infinite. That is why we have conditions of admission in List of political parties in Italy and Template:Italian political parties. As User:MrOllie pointed out at Wikipedia:Teahouse, "standalone list inclusion criteria can be whatever is supported by consensus of the editors involved in working on that list" and "any criteria could be 'legitimate'".

Rules were not decided by me alone. They are the result of a long process, through discussions and cooperative edits, both in it.Wikipedia and en.Wikipedia, both regarding the template and the list. Over the last year, rules have been strongly challenged by User:SDC. He has invited several users to discuss and, when not edit-warring, he has long tried to obtain changes and he succeeded on several occasions. Basically, only User:Autospark and I have been more or less regularly involved in the discussion until today. Sometimes, I have been out from Wikipedia for three/four days or, once, a week (that is why I could not participate in a thread at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard in time), but I never refrained from answering to any comment or proposal by User:SDC. In a nutshell, all the users who participated in the discussion have explicitly or implicitly supported the current rules or, at least, the fact that, until a new consensus is formed, they should stay.

This said, I am also interested in changing the current rules. I have been proposing a new presentation (it would make easier for both readers and editors to understand them and engage in the talk page), I have offered several compromises and there have been several issues on which we have agreed, but User:SDC's "all or nothing" strategy has made few compromises possible so far.

I have to say that the fact that my good faith is always put into question is quite annoying and, frankly, offensive. User:SDC has a long history of accusing me of just about everything, as well as disparaging User:Autospark, an independent-minded, knowledgeable and long-time editor, for the only reason that he frequently agrees with me on this specific issue.

There is ample room for further changing the rules. I am a good-faith editor and, as User:SDC should know, despite his accusations, I am always open to dialogue and compromise, otherwise I would have made bold edits (including adding the non-controversial "Organisation" scheme—there is an ongoing RfC now) and I would not have accepted compromise rules that I do not like. Indeed, some of the issues raised by User:SDC have already reached a positive solution in the list.

Conditions of admission are legitimate and the current rules are established consensus. This said, I will always be available for debate and, as said, I am much interested in changing some of the rules and, first and foremost, their presentation. --Checco (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Robert McClenon: I am interested in your mediation! The current rules are those listed in the RfC I started this morning. The RfC is only about a better presentation of the current rules, but I am sure it will be easy to discuss changes starting from a clear presentation. --Checco (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Autospark

I feel the need to have some level of rules for inclusion into the list article – essentially, in terms of Italian political parties, there is such a broad range of organisations past and present that some level of control has to be set for relevance and notability. I would prefer for users to discuss, agree and compromise on the issue, in order to (hopefully) arrive at a well-constructed set of inclusion criteria which all users can be satisfied with.

I am not particularly happy about accusations casually thrown around by User: Scia Della Cometa. It does not seem in good faith to do so, and feel that it needlessly derails the discussion, in this case on the inclusion rules. As my general history has shown, I am prepared to compromise (in fact I aim to do so), and try to avoid bold or non-consensus edits.--Autospark (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Per Usedtobecool and the discussion at the Teahouse, this is nowhere near ripe for arbitration. It's not even planted in the ground and covered in manure. Our ARBCOM is already busy this month with extraordinarily more pressing matters. Suggest speedy close. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

Premature. Easy mistake to make for those less than clear on our law-library-sized byzantine processes except the initiator did receive excellent advice on both the issue itself and WP:DR from Usedtobecool in this thread at the Teahouse on what to to do. Unfortunately, seems uninterested in following through on that. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Italian political parties)

First, this is a content dispute. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been any claim about conduct issues. This dispute appears to have been filed here based on a mistaken good-faith comment by User:David notMD that arbitration is needed, and he probably meant that mediation is needed.

This dispute was at DRN briefly about two months ago. I closed it for timing reasons. The other editor, User:Checco is a long-standing editor who edits intermittently. As I said at the time, their opinions need to be respected and heeded, but without impeding work on the article. The usual rules require each editor to respond within 48 hours. That will not work. I am on the one hand willing to try to conduct mediation on a schedule that is agreeable to both principal editors. The use of RFCs is the alternative. There have been previous RFCs that have had inadequate participation. The other editor in this case, User:Checco, has now started a poorly worded RFC, which is better than nothing.

The filing party, User:Scia Della Cometa, is making resolution of this dispute difficult by the length of their posts, their impatience, and their apparent hostility. (Remember that using too many words increases the amount of time for other editors to respond to your lengthy posts.) I am willing to try to mediate this dispute with a schedule that will work for Checco and SDC, and, if so, I will insist that they be concise. I remind them that the objective should be to improve the article, not to argue about the article. What I think would work best is a sort of facilitated discussion with the objective of composing the right RFCs.

I thank editors User:Firefangledfeathers, User:Usedtobecool, and User:Nightenbelle for trying to be constructive with these two editors.

On the one hand, I think that we are here because an editor at the Teahouse mistakenly referred to arbitration rather than mediation. On the other hand, the side benefit of this misfiling may be to get these two editors to talk to each other and the community rather than just posting repeatedly on an article talk page.

If this case request stays open, I will request another 300 words to try to address to these editors. That will be small compared to the words that User:Scia Della Cometa has already posted.

ArbCom should decline this case. Are the two editors willing to participate in facilitated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC

Added Note

User:Scia Della Cometa, User:Checco - If either of you enter a case request at DRN, I will open a case for moderated discussion, and will provide ground rules that will permit periodic breaks, and other editors may also participate. Civility and conciseness will be demanded. The purpose of the moderated discussion will be to improve the List of political parties in Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

Decline, obviously. Since this has the attention of the community, what would help is someone clerking the talk page, hatting repetitions and irrelevancies. It would also help for an admin to watch the discussions and warn participants against bludgeoning. There will be enough interest now that it will resolve one way or the other, if the main parties to the dispute don't get to say anything twice in the same discussion. I would do the clerking except I am a bit involved, having opined that the selection criteria used in the article go beyond editorial discretion and may constitute original research. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 10 January 2022 (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.

Legitimacy about the imposition of never approved rules: Clerk notes

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

Legitimacy about the imposition of never approved rules: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Decline This appears to be a content dispute,which is out of ArbCom's purview. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Arbcom doesn't decide content. The still-running RfC hasn't been publicised at either of the projects noted on the article's talk page. That would be more productive than letting the RfC run on for 6 weeks with just 2 protagonists and 2 by-standers. Cabayi (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Beelblebrox and Cabayi. - Donald Albury 20:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even were it the case that the normal content process has stalled, it also appears there are still multiple conduct processes to try in this case. Decline also at this time. --Izno (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're doing the formal vote thing I am a decline per my colleagues. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. What this needs is more eyes on the talk page, broader recruitment to the RfC as Cabayi suggests, and possibly a WP:DRN post. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]