Revision as of 16:43, 2 January 2022

• 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

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

Cf. quote above. 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)

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)

Since I was just pinged by Levivich in , 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

@User:El_C re: comments on WPO 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)

Re: User:Levivich, relying on another indef banned 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)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

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)

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)

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 Levivich

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)

Jan Grabowski is one of the historians quoted in the Haaretz article. is an article (in Polish) by Grabowski, in which he writes "This is how the technique of falsifying Polish history in Misplaced Pages works." (Tak działa technika fałszowania polskiej historii w Wikipedii.) is a response article by User:Piotrus, in which he writes "There is no conspiracy of Polish nationalists falsifying history in Misplaced Pages, 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Statement by My very best wishes

• While commenting before I did not know that Icewhiz recently applied for adminship and nearly succeeded: Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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 . My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

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)

• 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)

Statement by GizzyCatBella

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

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

• @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)

Quote - I did get an email from Icewhiz today..

• 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. I am not sure that I want to know what the "sides" are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2022 (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)

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)

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"
• 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)

@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)

@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)

Statement by El_C

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) 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:

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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 21:50, 1 January 2022 (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)

@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)

@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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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: 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. 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 which I won't quote here. Now compare these edits , . Compare some of the stuff Ealdgyth has found, particularly the earlier items.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2022 (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)

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

@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)

Statement by User:力

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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 . Ultimately, Hippeus and Astral Leap were blocked as sockpupets of Icewhiz, and the list of some the blocked sockpuppets can be found here: . 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)

• 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

@CaptainEek, Thanks for the clarification. -- lomrjyo 🐱 18:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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 12:05, 2 January 2022 (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)
• 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)

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

• 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)

• @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)

• 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)

@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 ⚓ 20:04, 30 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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) 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) "> ">

• 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)
• 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)
• Decline - to get us out of Net4 territory & avoid sleepwalking into acceptance. Cabayi (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• 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)

Motion: Resolution of this case request (1)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 Misplaced Pages'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.
4. Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
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 the event that such an arbitration case is opened, the Committee will give serious consideration to requests to hold part or all of the case in camera.
8. Editors are reminded that Misplaced Pages discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Misplaced Pages 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.

Support

1. 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)
2. 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)

Oppose

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 ⚓ 09:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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 and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage . The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that Jehochman has since apologized for these comments.

Support

1. 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)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

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 and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage . 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

Oppose

1. 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, in 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)

Abstain

Comments

MyMoloboaccount

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs) is warned against casting aspersions towards other editors . 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

1. 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)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

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. ). 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

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

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 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. ).

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

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

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Piotrus

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

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

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.

Support

1. 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)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments