This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 22:22, 26 December 2021 (→Statement by Jehochman: collapse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Warsaw concentration camp

This case request is suspended for 48 hours. This case request should not be edited by anyone other than arbitrators, arbitrators-elect, and arbitration clerks. In the event that further submissions are necessary, please direct them to the Arbitration Committee by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Submissions that provide substantive and useful information and evidence remain particularly helpful. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Initiated by Jehochman at 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• diff of notification Piotrus
• diff of notification Volunteer Marek

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• COIN discussion ending without result 4 December 2021
• Original RFC at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp
• RFC at Talk:Reliability of Misplaced Pages
• An older discussion at WT:List of hoaxes on Misplaced Pages

Statement by Jehochman

Statement by Piotrus

I have no idea why the closure of three mostly stale discussions ended up at ArbCom. I'll just say that Jehochman seems pretty confused about a number of things (including reposting a somewhat biased summary of the discussion in question - no, the Haaretz piece is not critical of Icewhiz, it's very sympathetic to his "plight", and criticizes all of his opponents, including the ArbCom, which had the gall of banning the poor fella...). There is also zero relation to the now 12-years old EEML case; although apparently, Jehochman has bad memories of it (for the record, I don't recall interacting much with Jehochman, and it is the first I hear EEML has targetted them - although it was 12 years ago and EEML included various individuals with various agendas...). Anyway, it would be good for this poisoning the well/WP:ASPERSIONS with references to ancient wiki history to end. As for the closure requests in question, it would be good to see a closure by someone familiar with the issue at hand (i.e. the extent of harassment by Icewhiz out of which the Haaretz piece is his biggest success, in which he duped an otherwise reasonable journalist and newspaper into reprinting his ArbCom-rejected conspiracy theory). #Statement by Alanscottwalker is actually a nice solution and I'd endorse it. On a side note, I do think it is important for the community to clearly say that such calls to arms (cf. quotes from the paper in the collapsed section below) representing extreme WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and also WP:BLP/WP:NPA/WP:AGF violations (although outside the project space) are not welcome on the project, in any shape or form. In other words, WP:HARASSMENT needs to be observed, and it should also prohibit the usage of harassment outside Misplaced Pages 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.

I really don't think Misplaced Pages should support "granting ammunition for his last offensive in the footnote war". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@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).

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages"? 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Statement by Paul Siebert

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

"Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

@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)

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

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)

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 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

This is, largely, about a footnote. A footnote. The other places are an internal Misplaced Pages page and two sentences at Reliability of Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 longstanding, neutral, respected admin) can close it.

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

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

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 Misplaced Pages space, i.e. whether a user's intent to deceive is needed or it is enough to show that by all likelihood the original information (Trzcińska's book, in this case) was initially published as a hoax (I'd say yes).

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages - 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)

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)

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)

Statement by GizzyCatBella

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

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages... These friends - let's put all our cards on the table here - are Levivich and Francois Robere (usually supported in these endeavors by various sock puppets of Icewhiz or other indef banned users)."
• 19:01, 27 November 2021 "Levivich's write up is a masterwork of cynical sophistry, strategic omission and manipulation"

Also note an earlier incident on the same subject.

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

@El C: You forgot to mention your five behavioral warnings to Volunteer Marek, which never materialized into sanctions. François Robere (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

Statement by El_C

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

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

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 . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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):

1. Hear that distant noise? That's Icewhiz pointing and laughing at ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC) — diff
2. “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:

• 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)

Statement by Pabsoluterince

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

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine and I'm not sure anyone is ready for that again. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@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)

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 20:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@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 20:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@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 22:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Arbcom-please delete my account.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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 20:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  I have seen your request Piotrus and have passed it on to the arbs. Dreamy Jazz 21:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Clerk note: @Szmenderowiecki: We've seen your request for an extension and it is currently under discussion on the Clerk's mailing list. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 22:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
•  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 19:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• @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 14:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• @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 21:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Clerk note:Jehochman's section closed per discussion on Clerks-L. Jehochman has been notified. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 20:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Warsaw concentration camp: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/1/0>-Warsaw_concentration_camp-2021-12-21T15:10:00.000Z">

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)"> ">

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  @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)

  @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)

• 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 ⚓ 03:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• 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 (Misplaced Pages: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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

    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)

• @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(talk) 14:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  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(talk) 15:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  @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(talk) 16:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  @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 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages. At this late date, no one can determine whether the statement was added to the article with the intent to perpetrate a hoax on Misplaced Pages, as opposed to incorporation in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort (2018) and even as far back as Misplaced Pages: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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

  Accept per Primefac and Katie. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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 17:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• 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)