Initiated by the Arbitration Committee, invoking its jurisdiction over all matters previously heard and exercising its authority to revisit any proceeding at any time at its sole discretion.

All parties listed were named in "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" (link). Editors named in the article but not included are those who are indefinitely blocked/banned, who are deceased, or who are or were sitting Arbs. Parties may be added or removed at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee if a case is opened. Inclusion in this list, or as a party if a case opens, does not mean that misconduct has or will be found.

• Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ealdgyth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ermenrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jacinda01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lembit Staan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mick gold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nihil novi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Voceditenore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xx236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

• Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• GoldenRing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Buidhe
• Ealdgyth
• Ermenrich
• François Robere
• GizzyCatBella
• Jacinda01
• K.e.coffman
• Lembit Staan
• Levivich
• Mhorg
• Mick gold
• My very best wishes
• Nihil novi
• Paul Siebert
• Piotrus
• Poeticbent
• Szmenderowiecki
• Voceditenore
• Volunteer Marek
• Xx236
• Drmies
• El C
• GoldenRing
• Sandstein
• TonyBallioni
• Ymblanter

Proceedings being revisited, in part or in whole

• Piotrus
• Eastern Europe
• Eastern European disputes
• Eastern European mailing list
• Russavia-Biophys
• Antisemitism in Poland
• Warsaw concentration camp case request

You know... a bit more guidance on exactly WHAT this means would be nice. What are you LOOKING at and what do you want to see. (And I'm going to proactively request a LOT more words, because frankly, after the last few times I submitted evidence and had it not understood because it was within the word/diff limits, I'm tired of being asked for evidence that is hamstrung by evidence limits.) Ealdgyth (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old links to previous thoughts:

• My thoughts on an Amendment request for Eastern Europe from April 2019
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Statement by Ealdgyth from June 2019
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive280#Statement by Ealdgyth from Jan 2021
• User:Ealdgyth/Holocaust in occupied Poland arb com evidence#Summary from Jan 2022
• Warsaw Concentration Camp from Dec 2022

This is not an exhaustive list at all. I'm pretty sure I weighed in on the lifting of the topic bans for VM and GCB, and I know I've weighed in on many other Arb Enforcement threads that I can't find easily (incidentally, I'd love to see links to the discussions that lifted those topic bans). Nothing is resolved or fixed yet. There is still a disinclination to actually look past the surface and get into the meat of the issue - which is distortion of the articles through various means. Instead, it's still a battleground (the comments here at this page show several examples of it) that has too many people interested in scoring points against the "other side" (and that holds true for both "sides") rather than actually fixing the articles. As for the existing procedures - they aren't working. The sourcing restriction is a joke - when one of the arb enforcement threads resulted in a warning for Buidhe for removing sources that did not fit the sourcing reqs, it's clear that the sourcing requirement isn't working (see the Jan 2021 comment listed above). In that example, the Mark Paul source that's been discussed to death in the past as an unreliable source was restored over Buidhe's objections and Buidhe was told by the admins at that enforcement that basically, no matter the requirement for using only high-quality sources AND the fact that previous discussions had come to the conclusion that Mark Paul did not meet the enhanced sourcing requirements in the topic area, the onus was on her to prove AGAIN on the talk page that the Paul source (and others) did not meet the requirements. I think we can see that the sourcing requirement isn't working. On whether I think arbitration now would solve the issues? Given the track record of past arbcoms, forgive me for not having a lot of hope that anything will change. But sure, let me try again. Please read my above past statements. They still ALL apply. It's still a battleground where too much time is spent chasing Icewhiz and not enough time fixing articles. And why should I try to fix them when it's likely that I'm just going to have to fight tooth-and-nail to exclude obviously unreliable sources like Mark Paul? (Please note that I'm as opposed to including anything that pushes a "all Poles were collaborators with the Nazis" POV also.) The subject of the German actions in Poland in the Holocaust (and by extension, the whole of Eastern Europe) is one where nothing is easy and it's too easy to fall prey to POV-pushing. What's needed is calm discussion without battleground behavior and the willingness to compromise. That's not happening, and the only reason it's not nastier right now is that much of the attention is now focused on Russian-Ukrainian issues due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This is a bit over 500 words, but I'm going to beg folks' indulgence on it.

As for being listed as a party, I knew that allowing myself to be interviewed might lead to an ArbCom case with me being mentioned. I did think hard about it, but in my opinion, it's important that we (as in Wikipedia) get our articles on this topic right. I don't necessarily agree with everything in G&K's article, and I'm certainly not a fan of Icewhiz, but I do think we need to make sure our articles are correct as possible. I'm actually surprised (and rather pleased) that ArbCom took the initiative and is trying to solve the problem, so I'm not fussed about being listed as a party. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what to post here and honestly, given how unpleasant this topic area is, I'm not sure I want to say anything. I have been mercifully uninvolved in this topic area for quite some time, and was mostly involved through the fact that some of the same editors also edit articles related to other aspects of Polish history. I was quite amazed to see that I've been cited in the Grabowski/Klein article. Let me simply say that I'm fairly certain that there is some truth to what Grabowski/Klein write about the topic area (which is certainly peer-reviewed, Floquenbeam, see [1]).--Ermenrich (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was active in this topic area (TA) between January 2018 and July-August 2021. I ceased my involvement due to persistent harassment and "hounding"; because it was impossible to achieve anything meaningful without first having to go through weeks of stonewalling and disruption; and after having exhausted all other avenues of recourse, including ArbCom and T&S.
2. I would like to commend whoever arb it was who suggested the committee addresses this proactively.
3. There are things that can be done to make this process a success.[2]
   1. With regards to participants, note that both RexxS and Guerillero were previously involved in the topic area as admins. RexxS has since left the encyclopedia, but I'm mentioning them for good order.
4. That said, some of the participants have by now accused their colleagues, the BLP authors of the essay, and the one who authored the 2019 piece, of all manner of wrongdoing: from not verifying the facts, to "misconduct", to having a banned editor "co-author" their work, and up to "whitewashing" the actions of a person who allegedly made "rape threats against children". This has happened on this page and elsewhere, on- and off-Wiki, and has received nearly zero attention from admins. If this is a sign of things to come, then - respectfully - I'd rather put my evidence on the table and recuse myself in advance. François Robere (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

• Jacinda01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (listed as party here) (with a total of 16 edits) is a (possible, but I'm sure it is) sock-puppet of Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See edit by a block sock puppet named Bob not snob -->[3] See the same edit of Jacinda01 restoring blocked sock puppets entry 24 hours later.

Do you still want to hear from them? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacinda01 is mentioned by G.&K as follows:

In September 2020 and February 2021, Buidhe and a user called Jacinda01 added these facts to Muszynski's Wikipedia biography, using the mainstream Polish newspapers OKO Press and Gazeta Wyborcza as their sources. (link) - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that G.&K. fail to mention in their work that the sock-puppet of Icewihz made the exact entry as Buidhe and Jacinda01. This important part has been ether intentionally or forgetfully (🧐?) omitted. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella🍁 18:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of February 15/2023 Jacinda01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked as sock puppet of Icewhiz. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC) link - to found sock-puppet accounts of Icewhiz - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions and queries to ArbCom:

• 1 - The most valuable thoughts that ArbCom members should reflect on are --> statement by Zero0000 and by Red-tailed hawk - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 - This comment by Beyond my Ken addresses a crucial point that needs to be yet plainly defined and backed by a blueprint of some sort. Why user User:Chapmansh, the co-author, is not included as a party? User Chapmansh was involved in the content output of this topic area (notice agreeing with Icewhiz and Xx236 party, as an example) Why special treatment? - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 - If case is accepted - one important thing needs to be introduced that will deter the usual mud-throwing to settle old scores and insure that ArbCom deals with real issues - (as HJ Mitchell already suggested) --> Those users who commence presenting evidence are automatically added as parties. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC) a perfect example of the above - statement like this one of the user who emerged here (presenting evidence of distortion). This user was topic banned in a completely different area because of a prior disagreements with one of the named as a party (Volunteer Marek) - now shows up in the area they never edited before their topic ban with accusations of the distortion (see "I’ll punch") - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 4 - Are statements from non - extended confirmed accounts permitted despite WP:APL50030? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC) determined - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 5 - ArbCom, please be also knowledgeable that the harassment of named editors from the main player continues (there is much more of it, but I’ll document more concerning sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry at the appropriate time) - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(continued here or worse - personal attacks from active editors, see [4] - Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term and follow up [5] User talk:TrangaBellam#Friendly request to WP:REFACTOR. see [6] - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody thinks I've done anything disruptive, I'd ask the diffs to be presented so I can answer for my conduct and we can get on with adjudicating it (in any forum). If nobody thinks I've done anything disruptive, I'd ask to be removed as a party. In the meantime, I'm not going to comment on other editors' conduct while my own conduct is under review. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Animal lover 666. While I could answer Wug and Izno's questions about the scope of current disruption, as soon as I post something critical of someone else, I'll be met with a "counterattack". I'm glad arbs have stepped up to help, but for reasons explained by Floq, FFF and others, I strongly disagree with naming everyone mentioned in the paper as parties (it's fine as a list of people to notify, but it's illogical, incorrect, and very unfair as a list of parties, even in a 'mere' case request; while I agreed to be interviewed for the paper, others did not, and nobody controls whether they're mentioned in someone else's article). This may become the second time I'm a party to a case in which I'm not accused of any wrongdoing (or am I? I don't know). If I have done something wrong, I will answer for my conduct like anyone else, but I am a volunteer and I refuse to be "drafted" like this. I will not participate in a gladiator contest where I exchange accusations and evidence with others so the arbs can give a thumbs up or thumbs down at the end. Some may say this is our way; well, then find someone else to fight in the arena. Besides, the same problems identified in the paper are happening on this very page. I'm glad arbcom wants to help, but frankly I have nothing to show them that they haven't already seen. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Please tell me what you think I did wrong so I'm not waiting and wondering. Levivich (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you still think your motion was reasonable, and I don't think it's fair to vaguely mention "other things" without specifying them, and instead suggesting I review a giant page to find it for myself. If you want to "sua sponte" start a case against me, I think you should be a filer and not an arbitrator of that case. Same holds true for every party on this list and every arb. If Arbcom wants to fact-check the paper, or conduct a general review of the topic area, it can do that without naming any parties at all; indeed, it shouldn't even be thinking about parties until after the review, otherwise it's pre-judgment. Parties should only be added on some kind of specific showing of probable cause--that's true for any case, IMO. Levivich (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to endorse the suggestion that if Arbcom reviews this topic area, it asks the WMF to hire an expert (similar to what it did in the Croatian investigation) to help them; someone who could answer questions like "what is the definition of 'The Holocaust'" etc. Levivich (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Jehochman:: Shut this down, go back to the discussion(s) at the pump about process reforms (and at the article talk pages about content) which have now stalled because of this case request. As for Arbcom, it should tell the community it stands ready to review a case request (a normal one, made by an editor, with diffs of recent disruption, etc.), and Arbcom could ask the community how it could otherwise help, then listen to the responses and go from there. Levivich (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Remember that time when an editor was "thought to have attacked and disparaged other Wikipedians" on Wikipediocracy or Discord and Arbcom started a case against them? No? Me neither. Levivich (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started contributing in this topic area in March 2021. I tried to include some information on Jan Żaryn (the academic also mentioned in the paper) and Institute of National Remembrance. I made about ten entries and left about ten comments, if I remember correctly. Mainly my contributions were countered by Volunteer Marek. I cannot say whether their reasons were valid, but I believe that they often abused the 'Undue' argument, which is really very vague, even in the face of reliable sources. Approximately in July 2021, I left for other topics, as collaboration was at a low point and no improvements could be made on the articles.--Mhorg (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to respond to being informed about this issue, except to echo the concerns articulated by Floq. Especially his bullet point #2. Mick gold (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If the comments by Piotrus [8] and VM [9] are correct, as they appear to be, then this entire story (i.e. the interviewing WP participants off-wiki, the publication, and the complaint submitted to WMF) is a scientific misconduct by Grabowsky and Klein; this misconduct was instigated by the banned user Icewhiz; and the publication in The Journal of Holocaust Research should be retracted. Also note that the "breach of confidentiality such as disclosing the identity of individuals or groups involved in research without their consent" may be already seen as a scientific misconduct [10].

• Yes, there was a recent disaster in this subject area, and that disaster is Icewhiz. After being banned, he managed to create sockpuppets and nearly successfully applied to a position of a WP administrator. He also managed to instigate the previous arbitration request in 2021 [11].

• Whatever was tainted through association to Icewhiz, including the article by Grabovsky and Klein, must be ignored per WP:DENY.

• If there is an evidence of recent and significant misconduct by any parties (evidence that is not tainted by Icewhiz), then a case can be opened with such parties listed as participants of the case, but I do not see such evidence at all.

• The central thesis of the article by Grabovsky and Klein is "Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" in WP. This paper suffers from several fatal flaws:

• 1. To prove their claim above, authors discuss not the current versions of WP pages, but versions that existed long time ago. This is like criticizing old drafts of a scientific paper, rather than the final version submitted to a journal. For example, authors complain about including Stachura’s criticism to article about Polonsky. But VM removed it from the page long time ago [13], after discussion. Authors disagree with certain version of page History of the Jews in Poland. But it was fixed several years ago. Same with many other pages. A comparison with current versions of pages would produce a completely different result. This is improper manipulation with data, in the crudest possible form, by the authors.

• 2. Authors complain that some pages include too large sections about something, for example section about "Jewish collaboration" in Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland#Collaboration_by_ethnic_minorities. Can this prove the claim about the "Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust"? How? This section is properly sourced, even to Hanna Arendt, and yes, it is bigger than others, but this is because we have pages like Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany (which can be linked there) and do not have such page about Jewish collaboration. This is making unsubstantiated accusations.

Authors proved only a few trivial points: (a) WP is not an RS, (b) every page can be improved, (c) several people contributed a lot to pages related to Poland (rather than to Holocaust in Poland, this is just a narrow subject area G. and K. are interested in), (d) most contributors are amateur volunteers (it may take a long time to find, analyze and discuss sources, especially when the opinions differ; finding WP:Consensus in such areas is difficult), and (e) experts can easily criticize any WP pages in any subject area, (f) G&K could easily improve these page (yes, some participants are already working to improve them right now per their recommendations, thank you!). My very best wishes (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

G&K undertook a case study of alleged intentional misinformation in WP. This would be OK, unless the following:

• 1. Publishing personal information about a number of WP contributors in the manner they did (this is not names, but one of links)
• 2. Filing a complaint about very same contributors to WMF
• 3. Writing their "essay" in a highly personalized way when it reads as an attack page directed against same people, rather than as a scientific publication
• 4. There were fatal methodological flaws in their research (see above)
• 5. The story with serious mischief by Icewhiz in WP, including his harassment of very same contributors. Given that G&K strongly support Icewhiz in their essay, this whole story has an appearance of G&K acting as representatives of Icewhiz who circumvents his site ban by using G&K as his "proxies" (my thoughts [14]).

In other words, instead of doing a legitimate scientific research of "human subjects" in their social environment (WP), G&K are going after these subjects in real life, which constitutes a breach of scholarly conduct, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

• Perhaps I should be dismissed as a man who knows too little, but I think that Arbocom should never open any cases directly in response to any publications criticizing Wikipedia, even if there was a history and there are reasons to believe there is a problem. Yes, there could be a problem, but by taking this case Arbcom creates a very bad precedent of unduly influencing the events in Wikipedia, even by banned users. Yes, some of the outside publications can be very important. If that happens, one should post an RfC and first seek community input. Then, a lot of things may happen. Maybe someone needs to be blocked. Maybe this is a WP:AE or WP:ANI issue. Maybe someone will try to initiate an arbitration, after looking very carefully at the issue. Maybe a few pages just need to be fixed. Yes, this is possibly just a matter of procedure, but procedures are very important to properly resolve conflicts. Even if Abcom believes there is an underlying issue that community was unable to resolve, it still should not open the case in response to any publication criticizing Wikipedia. If you want to be involved, the proper approach would be as follows: (a) investigate the situation to determine whose editing was recently a problem, (b) open a case with only those "sides" who really need to be involved, which can be done without mentioning the outside publication, even if you used it during your investigation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions: Who initiated this proceeding, and why? Who is the plaintiff? Where can that information be found? Why does my wikinym appear in the list of "potential parties"? Am I accused of a transgression? Rather than open a Spanish Inquisition, or House Un-American Activities Committee, type hearing, why not start by analyzing and responding to Piotrus' rather comprehensive, to-the-point response, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus/Response , to the extra-Wikipedia, "peer-reviewed", on-the-face-of-it dubious paper by Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein (aka Wikipedia user:Chapmansh), "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust", The Journal of Holocaust Research, 2023, DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939? If the proposed inquest is approved, will all "potential parties" who subsequently have not been inculpated be issued certificates of non-culpability as protection from stigma that attaches to having been involved as a "potential party" in this kind of inquest?

After I made this post, I was contacted by one of the authors of this article, and we had a long conversation where she asked for my additional comments and information. I briefly explained her about the history of EE related conflicts, including EEML and shared some general thoughts on the roots of these conflicts. I see that a part of this information is in the article (for example, the story of fake Jewish poster or EEML case), but the authors provide much more details, so they, obviously, performed an independent search. Some facts presented in this article are shocking. I didn't know that Galukopis, a lousy journal that is totally ignored by scholarly community is being used as a reliable peer-reviewed source by nationalist users. I am also very surprised that a well sourced statements about nationalistic stance held by Chodakiewicz were removed under pretext of WP:BLP. I made just a very brief check, but it seems that some statements made by the authors may need additional confirmation. Thus, I found a generally positive review on the book "Life Is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-Occupied Poland" by Ewa Kurek and Jan Karski. It seems that at least early works by this author should not be rejected, and the editors who used her early works as a source did nothing wrong. However, that is only my first impression, I need to analyze the subject more deeply to make a definite conclusion.

I agree with the users who argue that this case should not lead to any personal sanctions: even if the users listed in the article were producing a bad content, they did that without violation of our rules, or because admins turned a blind eye on their violations. Therefore, if this case will be open, we should discuss possible measures for prevention of future POV-pushing, but not personal sanctions for POV-pushing committed in the past.

In my previous post, I shared my ideas on the measures that should be taken to improve the situation. Part of them (I mean source restriction) had already been implemented. I don't know if that led to any improvement (I hope it did), but the recent story of Galukopis (a formally peer-reviewed, but desperately lousy journal) demonstrates that it appeared to be insufficient. I think we need to discuss additional measures. We must develop a new approach to this type problems, because local sanctions against individual persons would be just palliative measures.

I also anticipate a new point of huge tensions: the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Although everything related to Russia is considered, to some degree, toxic, I also anticipate a huge wave of Ukrainian ethnic nationalism. Remember, Ukraine is the only country in the world where such Nazi criminals and Holocaust perpetrators as Shukhevich are considered national heroes. I think a general approach to prevention of nationalist POV pushing in the Polish related area may be instrumental for dealing with the future wave of Russian and Ukrainian nationalist conflicts. That may save a lot of ArbCom's time and efforts in future. --Paul Siebert (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I can mostly point to Volunteer Marek's comment (Edit: also the statement by uninvolved Zero0000 is something I fully endorse and encourage everyone to read) as I can't think of anything better to say except make one point.

In the past, particularly recent (I believe a few exceptions can be found in some ancient ArbCom or two), Committee tended to focus on explicitly commenting on editor's faults, but not on their merits (or even the lack of faults). For example, parties that are found innocent are not really declared as such, they are just not sanctioned. Given that Icewhiz has explicitly stated that his goal is to destroy the reputation of his "enemies", and has duped outside media outlets into repeating his slanderous claims, perhaps it is time to reconsider this and if applicable, issue some findings of innocence or good standing at the end of those proceedings. In other words, community needs to deal with harassment not only by dealing with harassers (which is difficult in cases of harassment by already banned/off wiki parties) but find a way to actively support the victims. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My still-unifished analysis concerning inacurracies, errors and other issues with the essay that started this can be found here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DFlhb. Nobody is disputing that Poland has a problem of mythologized nationalistic historiography of the Holocaust. What User:Aquillion sources show is different: that scholarly research on Wikipedia and The Holocaust existed before the essay discussed here, and that other scholars have drawn different (less alarming) conclusions.

As for getting independent opinion, we have to be very careful what we consider independent (for example, USHMM is reliable, but it is also associated with one of the authors of the article). If we get any experts, it should be a panel, and one that is not biased toward any POV or side (and figuring out how such a panel would be created seems like a major challenge). In either case, first we need to conclusively show that there is a problem in the topic area that goes beyond the usual issue of Wikipedia being incomplete and an occasional POV-pushing happening here and there. And let's not overreact: in the past numerous scholars have claimed that there is bias on Wikipedia in various topic areas - and we generally shrug, as they don't understand how Wikipedia works and/or their criticism is UNDUE (ex. Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias, Study claims to have found quantitative proof of gender bias in Wikipedia's deletion processes; popular Polish people were presented much more critically in the English compared to the Polish Wikipedia - that's from [15] referring to [16], "How partisanship and perceived political bias affect wikipedia entries of news sources", "Negotiating Wikipedia narratives about the Yemeni crisis: Who are the alleged supporters of the Houthis?", to just name a few relevant works). Issues with content can be handled in the corresponding articles, where we already have tools like WP:APLRS andWP:APL50030 which IMHO work well enough. What the ArbCom should do is to see if any Wikipedia policies have been broken, for example through harassment or casting aspersions, creating battlegrounds, and such, and if they have been broken, deal with the parties responsible - and if not, then say so explicitly, to dispel the myth/allegation that this (painful...) topic is haunted by some editors who violate policies (other than Icewhiz and his socks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a few days of thoughts and analysis of where the statements are going, I urge the committee to decline the case for the following reasons.

1. The general thrust of the article by Grabowski and Klein is right. Their argumentation is not waterproof and at times even self-contradictory, still they make valid points that merit thorough investigation, particularly since the accusations in some cases in a way reflect my experience on editing in these articles.
2. However, ArbCom isn't qualified to resolve these. They have no idea how scholarship in this area works, there is no indication any member speaks Polish or other Slavic languages, and anyway ArbCom and admins shied away from enforcement for too long, so they have little experience in serving justice in this area. If you want to decide if there was misconduct by distortion of scholarly consensus or by misrepresentation of sources is extremely difficult, which involves analysis of content, urge the WMF to open a hr.wiki-style inquiry. If the scope is limited to purely conduct issues, then I could support it but that's not where we're heading.
3. We will not resolve this dispute, at least for the foreseeable future, because there is a vocal minority of Polish nationalist historians who are directly supported by the government of Poland. Some will simply believe their theories more than those from the other side just in the same way it works in politics.
4. Any defamation/outing issues must be handled privately, as is our policy
5. I already notice that parties do not assume good faith with respect to others. I will just note that in the past few days editors alleged that Icewhiz ghost-wrote the article, was a (likely) co-author even though he was not mentioned there or that he was the main source for information about Wikipedia and that the authors allege that the named editors might be on govt's payroll even when the paper does not make that allegation and gives no indication that Icewhiz was behind it (see Piotrus rebuttal on Gazeta Wyborcza, as reposted on Wikipedia). Most of that became redacted later, but users forget that if they want to sanction Chapmansh (why isn't she a party yet? we need her statements), alleging unfounded accusations off-wiki against editors, it should work the other way round, right?

This is just a sample of what a shitshow is going to happen here once the case is accepted. Of these I've had more than enough, and users spend too much time on shitshows than hard work. I prefer much more to work on expanding articles (such as Warsaw concentration camp, Judiciary of Poland, Suwałki Gap or, on an unrelated note, Maurice Duplessis) than wasting my time on bickering on talk pages without effect, as has been the case all the time. Maybe someone will finally have enough of that? This is my hope, though I know this is not going to happen. This is a tremendous loss of efficiency, and there is work to do elsewhere.

And please, if you accept the case, investigate the matter thoroughly and do not limit yourselves to the statements in the evidence phase. Inquiry is what we need. Treat all statements with due scepticism and filter them for bias. If compelled by ArbCom, I will cooperate, but otherwise leave me out of this mess. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This case is indeed casting a very wide net. I was mentioned once in passing in the Grabowski article as having pointed out the unreliability of one of the sources in Antony Polonsky. I haven't edited that article in 10 years. My contribution was some copy editing and formatting. My participation was primarily on the talk page where I was responding initially to Moonriddengirl's request for a second opinion on possible copyright problems. (At the time I was serving as a Copyright Clerk.) I've never edited any of the other articles mentioned in the previous ArbCom cases or in Grabowski's article My specialty is opera and theatre. I have no idea whether this case is appropriate nor any insights to offer on the behaviour of the other editors involved. Frankly, I'd appreciate being removed as a party as I am now pretty much retired, but I understand that may not be possible. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right at the moment, writing impulsively from the top of my head and bottom of my heart I … am of two minds about this. Allow me to lay out my concerns and thoughts in a Pro vs. Con format, from my point of view:

Con

1. Arbitration Cases are a colossal sink of time and extremely stressful for those involved. I don't need that in my life.
2. This particular case is almost guaranteed to increase the level of off-wiki harassment and threats that I have experienced over the past four years. I am genuinely worried about my personal safety.
3. I am concerned that like with the Icewhiz case, the Committee will devote insufficient time to studying the evidence and will do another "let's just ban everyone" ruling.
4. I am concerned that some Committee members may be intimidated by external pressures. If they don't deliver the kind of verdict that Icewhiz, or Grabowski & Klein, desire, they may fear they will experience harassment similar to what I have incurred.
5. Virtually all of the content that is contained in the G&K article has already been examined either by ArbCom or at AE or other venues. There's nothing new here since last summer. Indeed pretty much the entire second half of the G&K article is basically just diffs from the 2019 Icewhiz case.
6. The reminder of the content of the article concerns edits made by long gone users (Poeticbent etc) with a lot of these edits dating back to 2008 or earlier.

Pro

1. The article makes a series of completely false allegations directed at me and I welcome any opportunity to help me clear my name. I know there will be plenty of dirt thrown (there always is) and there will lots of yelling and obfuscation but I do believe the evidence speaks for itself. I have already compiled A LOT of analysis of the underlying issues and would be happy to present them.

While I have more "Cons" than "Pros" in the above I also feel that my "Pro" is a lot more important than any individual "Con" except for #2 and so I have not settled upon which way I lean at this moment.

As an aside I'm wondering why User:Poeticbent, who has not made any edits in four years is being included as a party, but User:Chapmansh, who wrote the article that is prompting this is being omitted? Volunteer Marek 20:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ealdgyth - remember January of last year, right after the whole COIN mess? You drew up a list of things that were in need of fixin' in one particular article in this topic area. How many of the users who are perennial participants in these disputes and who are always showing up to complain about this topic area stepped up to help? How many made the effort to address ANY of the issues you pointed out?

One. Me. Nobody else did ANY work. Not even, or especially, any of the editors who are always saying there's problems in this topic area. I even went and purchased some of the sources [17] to try and solve them problems, as did you. And then I got frustrated. Not a single other person was willing to put their time and money where their mouth was and help out. I was the only one trying to listen to you. And then war in Ukraine broke out and that absorbed my attention. Looking at the article it seems like nobody has done much work on it since then (though I see that User:Izno has recently began improving it) Volunteer Marek 00:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to echo User:HJ Mitchell's proposal in their Addendum. If you start presenting evidence, then you're a party. Of course the ArbCom can add additional editors, whether they present evidence or not, as parties (honestly, that's how all ArbCom cases should work). If that was how this was set up I most likely would still choose to present and be a party to the case per my #1 "Pro" above.

Also - you guys know how these cases can quickly explode (including the 2019 case). This kind of provision might temper that tendency. Volunteer Marek 20:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general comment, but it was prompted by User:In actu's statement that "The 2021 committee did it (fail to open a case) and the results have been a disaster": I want to note that I haven't edited the area of "Poland and the Holocaust" since January of 2022 (there might be a couple exceptions), which is when the previous case request that Guerillero is referring to was rejected. It's a topic area which takes a mental toll on you even under the best of circumstances (you basically end up reading through dozens of sources which describe horrible things that happened), work in the area is obviously thankless and by Jan 22 most of the disruption from Icewhiz socks had died out. And the war in Ukraine broke out. Volunteer Marek 13:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moneytrees - thank you for reminding everyone about Eostrix. It's amazing to me how often people just want to ignore/forget the context of this topic area.

User:Cabayi makes an important point. G&K have had something like 2 years to work on this paper. Maybe more, depending on one's view of how this paper came to be. So far, the people they attack in their paper have had what... a week? to address these accusations. This is aggravated by the fact that as it turns out that many of the accusations are about some text someone added some long time ago (like, literally, 2008). Often by a completely different set of editors. So this isn't actually something I'm familiar with, so I have to go and dig out diffs, scroll through ancient article histories etc. Time consuming. I 100% support going through the G&K paper bit by bit, even sentence by sentence. But this raises a significant concern: Is the ArbCom really ready to devote the required time and energy to do that? One of the biggest problems during the 2019 Icewhiz case was that 1) Arbs began dropping out like crazy right after the case started so in the end there were only few left and 2) the Committee basically went AWOL (even the Clerks at the time noticed this and wondered about it), not replying, not updating, not... doing much of anything. Left alone it becomes a free for all and that's how you got those "Monster" threads that Moneytrees rightly criticizes. I don't think my apprehension that a similar scenario could play out again is unfounded; people have other things to do, this stuff's unpaid and stressful, etc. I guess time will tell. Volunteer Marek 19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Committee - since it looks like the case is going to be opened, I think some guidance regarding the scope and nature of it would be helpful. The entire second half of G&K's article is basically "disputes Icewhiz was involved in before his topic ban" and concerns arguments from 2018-2019 (though some of the axe grinding goes back to 2012 and one or two incidents from 2021 COIN case request are thrown in). Like, even the "diffs" are his, many from his 2019 ArbCom case. Are we supposed to re-litigate that case? Or should we focus on addressing the content issue allegations raised by the paper (mostly the first part of the paper)? A lot of these concerns about some of the sources (Kurek, Mark Paul) were actually addressed like five years ago (via removal) and were stale even by the time of the 2019 case (and concerns long gone editors, rather than anyone here). I haven't actually been editing in this topic area for at least past year (and really more like year and a half) so I'm not clear what is supposed to be addressed. Spillovers into other areas? Volunteer Marek 15:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My alleged crimes include :

• I have allegedly done 9,966 edits. I do not know how to verify the number and during which period I did the mentioned edits. I do many small edits because of my limited Wikipedia expertise and my poor English. If the authors mean I am delegated by the government to disinform, why has the government selected such an incompetent person like me?
• 'Many Jews spoke poor Polish. You can't pretend to be Polish if you don't speak fluent Polish.' The statement describes situation of Jews living on the 'Arian' side under German Nazi occupation of Poland. The great Polish-Jewish poet Julian Tuwim has criticized poor Polish language of conservative Jews. Neither Tuwim nor I comment 'race' but culture.
• Here is my complete comment: "A figure of 200,000 murdered suggests anywhere from 200,000 to one million collaborators - this remainds me the Lightbulb joke - how many Poles do you need to kill a Jew. There existed criminal gangs who murdered people routinely, not only Jews." I have answered the italicized speculation by FR. The 200,000 number has never been proven by Grabowski who meant "direct and indirect responsibility", so FR misquoted Grabowski. FR writes that one needed 1 till 5 Poles to kill one Jew, which was a case of racist Polish joke. Does anyone believes that the unsourced speculation belongs to the Wikipedia?
• 'Haaretz, Jerusakem [sic] Post, JTA frequently publish lies.' I support my opinion but I would remove 'frequently' and continue the list. 'lies' is my POV, the journalists may be ignorant.
• I have no access to the Forward article, so I do not know the context. I do belive that the Wikipedia is not a list of opinions of accidental people, Lang was a professor of philosophy. I should have expressed my opinion in more moderate words, but comparing a historian to Irving was a character assasination. I have recently read a text by Ewa Kurek, as far as I understand she quotes real Jewish accounts, but does not explain the 1940 context, when the Germans murdered and imprisoned people outside ghettos and did not inside them.

I am listed below the accusation 'systemic editing to distort factual articles'. I have never conciously distorted any article. I have made errors like people do. Is it allowed to attack editors this way?

Regarding the 3 million estimate - the number includes victims of Soviet crimes, Ukrainian and Belarussian victims. According to a recent report the Germans are responsible for 2 million of ethnic Polish vicitms. However any such division of the vicitms is based on Nazi definition of a Jew, which is controversial.

"For the last few years, Wikipedia's articles on the Holocaust in Poland have been shaped by a group of individuals (...) with a Polish nationalist bent. Their Wikipedia names are (...)Xx236(...)" I have been topic banned so I have not 'shaped articles'. Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what we are doing here. Are we going to judge the behavior of Wikipedia editors on-wiki based on the statements in an article? We're not judging the article, of course--but there's plenty judging to be done. And then there's this, "Editors named in the article but not included are those who are indefinitely blocked/banned, who are deceased, or who are or were sitting Arbs"--well, I was an Arb, a sitting one (?), but I'm named. I don't know why Arbs, current or former, should be excluded in the first place, but clearly I'm not excluded. So I would have a few things to say, about the article mostly, but also about initiating an Arb case based on something that cites a banned editor so heavily and is flawed in ways outlined by other editors, particularly User:Zero0000, in a process that seems flawed or at least questionable from the beginning, as Floquenbeam for instance signaled. What are we doing here? Drmies (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am somewhat cheered by Barkeep49's rationale for accepting the case--so we're essentially going through this because the ball was dropped earlier. And using a peer-reviewed article as a jumping board is a valid rationale--it's just sad that it's this peer-reviewed article. No, I'm not going to fault the reviewer or the journal editor, I guess, for not checking everything, but as I noted elsewhere, being cited incompletely can be seriously misleading, as happened to me. Which one of the two authors was responsible for that, I can't tell, but if "source misrepresentation" is going to be part of it, as Sandstein suggested, than User:Chapmansh (not on the list?) has something to answer for as well. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Barkeep49, it is not so that off-wiki behavior is completely outside the scope of the committee. Outside evidence was looked at for the Gamaliel case, because, if I remember correctly, there was off-wiki harassment, and off-wiki material was part of the Lightbreather case as well. I believe that there are a few editors here who believe, rightly or wrongly, that the article was a hit job and that a banned editor may have unduly influenced the writing of the article, and that users were doxxed. Since the EEML is listed here as within scope, or under scrutiny, or relevant, or whatever, the question of doxxing is no doubt going to come up in more ways than one, and I know you all have received a notice about that (that notice, I supported it, because I believe ArbCom should discuss and maybe decide on that by now ancient issue). In other words, Wikipedia editors can be and have been held to account for off-wiki behavior. Drmies (talk)

In so far as myself being instrumental in having ArbCom rescind VM's EE TBAN; in so far as myself being instrumental in having GCB's EE TBAN lifted at AE; in so far as myself being especially lenient on Piotrus' post-EMML CANVASS violations — my guilt is bottomless. No admonishment ArbCom might give me could come close to that which I direct to myself. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.

All I can say is that I made these pivotal mistakes in good faith; but the outcome is what it is nonetheless. I felt Icewhiz's egregious harassment of them served as a sufficient mitigating factor, but now I feel like I got duped. More so than any other time on-wiki before or after. In hindsight, the red flags were all there, so again, I don't have a good defense for having faltered so spectacularly.

I'm not sure to what extent I'll get to participate in this proceeding due to unrelated RL events, so, at this time, I'd like to make one correction to the journal article as it pertains to myself. The article quotes me as saying (and makes me seem as if) "I don't see a problem" with the obvious "false statement on most property being returned to Jews." But what I meant was that this wasn't a problem as a BLP violation only. Obviously, as an admin, I had no authority to weigh in or decide on the content, regardless of my own views. Oh well, I'll take that; I deserve so much worse. El_C 17:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that WP:APLRS was designed for this topic area (exceptionally so) in order to enforce the use of sources that represent demonstrably high scholarly rigor. If it is found that some editors are consistently falling short of its ethos, I'd submit that that is definitely something that is within the remit of ArbCom to remedy. El_C 23:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I lurk but am not active here and am no longer an administrator. If there is specific input the committee would like from me then please ask but my involvement here is so far in the past that memory will be a significant issue. What I do remember is that there is almost certainly POV-pushing on both sides but that the subject is so large and complex, and the vast majority of sources so non-English-language, that even figuring out what is going on is beyond anyone who has a full-time job. POV-pushing is not necessarily conscious POV-pushing; it is a topic where it takes a lot of caution to reflect the complexity of the situation in the WWII context where we are prone to reduce everything to good/bad narratives. I don't have great ideas on how to fix this and I think that's fairly reflected in how my comments are treated in the linked article. GoldenRing (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what Sandstein said. GoldenRing (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator formerly active in AE in this topic area, I am surprised to find myself named a party to a sua sponte arb case, and echo Floqenbeam's questions and concerns. I do not intend to participate in the case unless asked to by arbitrators, and accordingly request to be removed as a party.

With respect to whether a case is warranted, I don't really have an opinion, since I've not followed developments in this particular contested topic area for several years now. I suppose that the allegations made in the Journal of Holocaust Research article that I understand triggered the present case, as well as any related allegations of serious offwiki misconduct, do warrant investigation. But I'm not sure that this can be done independently of attempting to adjudicate the underlying content / historical dispute (which is apparently about the degree of complicity of various groups in the Holocaust in Poland). Perhaps the focus of the case, if the Committee decides to open one, could be to examine any allegations of serious editorial misconduct (source misrepresentation, tendentious editing, etc.) on the part of individual editors with more focus and thoroughness than an ad hoc AE thread would be able to. Sandstein 13:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting from an admin accountability standpoint (though I don't think I've been accused of anything here...): I've seen this. I was involved as an AE admin in this area ages ago, and I think I lived up to the standards of admin accountability and conduct at the time, but like anything I do, I'm fallible and I'm sure there were mistakes. As some arbs know, behavior related to this topic area is one of the primary reasons I am no longer all that active on Wikipedia, and without going into any additional details, I don't plan on participating in the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how I can contribute here. The episode which is mentioned in the article was extremely unpleasant to me, but the arbitrators know this, and the user who needs to be blocked is not going to be blocked, so I am not sure why I am being dragged here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this episode was already considered by ArbCom, and I was cleared of accusations of misconduct. Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hope I made it clear that I do not think I should be a party, but if the case gets accepted and the ArbCom wants to address the same episode for the second time, OID, who started it, must be made a party as well. Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not very important, but the article was translated to Polish and published in Gazeta Wyborcza [18]--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually keep my distance from DS CT topic areas and arbcom drama, but I did read the recent paper by Grabowski & Klein with great interest; I'm glad to see that this is happening, and I commend the committee for being proactive in tackling this issue. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of an English Wikipedia mechanism to have an "ad-hoc" or "blue-ribbon" commission to investigate, make recommendations, etc, I think we (you) should do this, and it at least should consider, no further sanctions, but still examine what allegations appear supported, not supported, or need further context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on if this case request should be accepted, so maybe I should be posting on a talk page somewhere. Clerks/Arbs can feel free to move this. But my gut finds the way the case request has been opened troubling, for reasons I have a hard time formulating in my head. My (weak) attempt at translating what my gut is feeling:

• Maybe the very large potential parties list is intended to get a lot of opinions on whether to actually have a case or not? But the fact that ArbCom created the case request itself (and Barkeep's comment) certainly makes it look like the odds are pretty good you're going to open one, and the only question is what gets looked at and who gets listed as a party in the actual case. I would certainly have a sinking feeling if I were listed there, just because someone mentioned me in an article.
• Are potential parties expected to comment here, at this stage, even if there is no reason to believe they did anything wrong? Usually, being a "party" pretty strongly implies you'd better comment at the case request or you'll regret it later... is that true here? Seems like there are probably a lot of "innocents" caught in this drag net.
• Not sure what the rationale is for omitting past or current Arbs from the potential parties list, but on the surface it sure seems like a bad look. I would assume any current Arbs mentioned in the article will recuse, and could thus be listed as potential parties; is that incorrect? I haven't looked thru the article and made a list of everyone mentioned; is the problem that almost all the current Arbs are mentioned? And in any case, why would former Arbs not have to deal with this, while mere mortals have to?
• This is outsourcing the selection of potential parties to non-Wikipedians. That just seems wrong. Will you do the same the next time Wikipediocracy has a blog post?
• I don't know, that's the best I can do putting it into words, but this huge potential parties list (wide-ranging for mortals, but with past and present Arbs immune) feels like something that is going to turn ugly and not help with much.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Note to self: Remember to never volunteer to help out in contentious areas.

One more question: the article markets itself as an essay. Are we sure it was "peer reviewed" in the normal sense of the term? Not a rhetorical question, a real one. i could be misunderstanding. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only echo and amplify Floq's concerns. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of melodrama that led me to stop working in AE. Emotionally overly engaged individuals sometimes look for bad guys and vindication that they are right and the good guys. AE and ArbCom serve only to address behavioral issues. They do not decide content disputes. There are other mechanisms for content disputes. Sometimes, those who disagree with an AE or ArbCom decision conclude that the person/people making the decision must be bad guys. It could not be that their behavior was overzealous or just plain inappropriate in any way. And I think that is a factor here to a greater or lesser extent. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Arbs are more likely to do a good job with this case than the WMF. And I'm not prepared to instruct them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland but I've been following discussions about it at various Wikipedia venues for a few years now, where far too often Polish nationalists have kept the upper hand thanks to what to seems like well-organised concerted efforts. I've skimmed Grabowski and Klein's scientific paper and what it describes is absolutely horrific and disgusting.

One thing I frequently observe is that the Polish nationalist group gangs up on other editors. After I twice came to François Robere's defence at their Talk page, GizzyCatBella turned up to my Talk page to inquire about me which I found chilling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robby.is.on/Archive_3#Puzzle_clarification_request

(edit conflict) Ah, I see GizzyCatBella's ever-watching eye has picked up my emotional outburst at TonyBallioni's Talk page. Keeping everyone in check, I guess.

I sincerely hope Grabowski and Klein's paper works as a wakeup call to the many people who haven't taken the issue of historical negationism seriously. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Where's the alleged personal attack? The fact that articles in the Holocaust in Poland topic area have been full of anti-semitic content is well-evidenced by the Grabowski and Klein paper. Have you read it? Robby.is.on (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, is there a language problem? "anti-semitic crap" clearly didn't refer to any specific comment. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding editorial integrity, it may be prudent for the editors in question to refrain from editing certain topics. Conducting fact-finding investigations may not be necessary due to the widely held perception that the internal editorial processes have failed to prevent biased editing. To mitigate this issue, the editors identified in the research paper can contribute greatly to the platform's credibility by voluntarily avoiding topics with potential bias or controversy, either through self-selection or self-banning.

Frequently, individuals who engage in negative behavior tend to evade accountability and deny responsibility for their actions. It would be a straightforward resolution for the individuals mentioned in the research paper to address this "arbitration" by committing to limiting their editing to areas without perceived or actual conflicts of interest, as indicated by external sources.

However, it is unlikely that the referenced parties will comply with this solution. Instead, the editors cited in the research paper may need to be indefinitely banned from the platform, as a means of addressing the issue of biased editing.

End Statement

For Reference Below

Per the research paper - and to clearly state the alleged issue and concern;

"For the last few years, Wikipedia’s articles on the Holocaust in Poland have been shaped by a group of individuals (‘editors’ or ‘Wikipedians’ in Wiki parlance) with a Polish nationalist bent. Their Wikipedia names are Piotrus, Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella, Nihil novi, Lembit Staan, and Xx236, as well as previously active editors Poeticbent, MyMoloboaccount, Tatzref, Jacurek, and Halibut. Their massaging of the past ranges from minor errors to subtle manipulations and outright lies."

Suggested topics of self or enforced censure;

The individuals who have been accused of displaying bias in the research paper should consider refraining from editing topics related to Poland, Ukraine, Holodomor, Soviet and Russian history, the Holocaust, Jewish people, Eastern European history, Europe, European History, historically significant or controversial individuals, current events concerning the Russian-Ukrainian war, Nazi memorials, and other subjects where future allegations of bias could arise.

By voluntarily abstaining from editing in these areas, the individuals can demonstrate their commitment to editorial integrity and impartiality. This can help to alleviate concerns about potential bias and rebuild trust in the platform's editorial processes. However, it is ultimately up to the accused individuals to decide whether to comply with this recommendation.

(simply "do the right thing" by taking personal responsibility) There are indicators that edits continue in the above listed topics by editors named in the research paper. There is "rationalization," in the form of technical and process based excuses, but no introspection of any kind.

The scope of the concern is too narrow; my perception is that there is bias and narrative framing across a wide number of interrelated topics..

This is an overview issue - not a "diff" issue - the failure is in the conduct and performance of the platform and its editors. "Outside perception" provides the evidence of failure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GizzyCatBella&diff=prev&oldid=1140674668

I have concerns about the Grabowski/Klein article[19] underlying this case. Grabowski states up front that the figure of 3 million non-Jewish Poles killed during WW2 is "false". Looking around at sources on the Web, I agree that many estimates are lower, but Grabowski doesn't make a case for such a categorical assertion. I see the US Holocaust Museum says[20] that It is estimated that the Germans killed between 1.8 and 1.9 million non-Jewish Polish civilians during World War II. But that number doesn't include non-Jewish Polish military deaths during the German invasion, military deaths during the 1939 Russian invasion, military deaths later in the war, non-Jewish Poles who died due to wartime conditions, non-Jewish Poles killed during the 1944-5 Russian advance, or non-Jewish Poles murdered by the Russians before or after the German occupation, such as the Katyn massacre. What is Grabowski's methodology for counting non-Jewish Poles killed during WW2? And on what basis does he say that the 3 million number is "false"?

Furthermore, the Grabowski article makes much of VM's deletions at Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. Reading Grabowski, one gets the impression that VM was whitewashing Chodakiewicz. Yet a version of the Chodakiewicz article[21] that was recently stable for 9 months is highly critical. And when I spot-checked the most recent VM deletion [22], it looked reasonable to me.

Perhaps peer review is less of a guarantee of reliability than we consider it to be.

• Zero0000 said[23] it much better than I could. The GK article should be viewed as the work of a party in a dispute. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quoted in the paper as saying that I think the 2019 committee did a poor job with the previous case, which I stand by. Part of that was circumstances (after WP:FRAMBAN and a spate of resignations we were down to six active arbs), but part of it was systematic. As Grabowski & Klein argue themselves, a volunteer committee without subject-matter expertise is just not suited to handle cases like this, where surface-level conduct issues mask deeper problems of source representation and (alleged) coordinated POV-pushing that even specialists have a hard time untangling. So although we definitely have to do something about this, I'm not too optimistic that a second arbitration case is going to work, even though this iteration of the committee is doubtless more capable than we were by September 2019. If you're going to try, I'd think the two major mistakes we made, and which I hope you'll be able to avoid, were shying away looking deeply into the content/sourcing issues (though you also have to avoid imposing your own interpretation on them – perhaps the Grabowski & Klein article helps here?) and being too quick to fall back on god will recognise his own. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think ArbCom should take ths case and commend it for proactively raising this. I don't edit in this area and don't know enough about the article subject matter or the specifics of what's gone on to have a clear view. But (1) I've observed from the outside the ongoing issues, including the Icewhiz saga, and it's clearly unresolved and the outcomes of previous processes questionable. One way or another this boil needs lancing. (2) I've read the Grabowski and Klein essay and even if only 20% of it is true, action is needed to address the issues raised. The essay is getting serious traction IRL. It can't be written off as a "talk page rant" and it's "all been said before". There's too many specifics, too much supporting material cited, and too much credibility in the essay's acceptance for publication in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal to be easily written off in that way. While I don't edit in this area and don't know the rights or wrongs of this particular issue, I recognise generically the issues relating to a single minded POV group controlling an area of editing. I think we must all know examples of it, sometimes in highly sensitive or political areas such as this one, sometimes in low prominence and esoteric areas. Whether it's happenened in this particular case, I can't say. It is a cancerous presence in Wikipedia though. Optimistically, I would hope that Arbcom could find "the answer" to that generically. That's a ridiculous long-shot of course. I think a key question is that if it is found that Grabowski and Klein's analyis is substantially true, then what went wrong with our processes previously and what needs to change to those processes stop it happening again should be within scope of the case. (I'd emphasise the if once again in that sentence.) The reason not to accept this case is that there is a massive question mark over whether Arbcom is the right process to get to the complex heart and the truth of it. But it's the best we've got. Good luck. DeCausa (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae makes a key point. How will Arbcom determine whether a group of editors has conspired to distort editing in this area with their bias (surely the main point of this Arbcom case) without taking a view on the content dispute? Ask WMF to pay for an independent study of the underlying content dispute? DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Adeptus article Aquillion links to says in its conclusion that in the review of equivalent articles in English, Hebrew and Polish Wikipedia the English version of the articles, in spite of being expected to perform as a “middle-ground”, neutral version, proved during the analysis to have numerous cases of biased structure or judgmental language. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volunteer Marek (re your edit summary). Exactly. There's clearly a prima facie rationale for this case to be opened. DeCausa (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a non party I can only look on in some dismay. I have read as much of the external papers as I can bear, and find that we are not clean on this article (or set of articles) in this area. It appears to me that our checks and balances are likely to have been subverted, perhaps by accident, perhaps on purpose.

I am emotionally unable to work in the Holocaust area because of family history, though not in Poland as far as I know, so my part here is limited to suggesting that not only does Arbcom take the case, but that their taking of it and decision making in it should be subject to an external audit by an independent and professional auditor.

I suggest the external audit not as a criticism of current or past Arbcom processes and decisions, but to seek to ensure in the world outside Wikipedia that everything reasonable has both been done and been seen to be done. I recognise that this will cost WMF money, but I believe it will be money well spent. Further, it will give our Arbcom team additional confidence in their decision making. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt I do not mean a financial audit. I mean and audit of process, with outcomes that show that all best practices have been adhered to. The overall topic is intractable (0.9 probability) but the Arbcom investigation needs to show process, fairness and relevant other agreed criteria, and to be demonstrated to have done so. This is an important matter for WMF as a whole, let alone EnWiki. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest further to Arbcom members that they will almost certainly benefit from the direct assistance and involvement of WMF in this issue, something I am sure has been considered already prior to their suggesting this case. Since the overall topic is academically challenging, Arbs are likely to find it exercises all of their skills and more to reach a conclusion, whatever their skillsets indvidually and jointly. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Peer review. One of the most persistent wiki-myths is that journals fact-check the articles they publish. Actually reviewers are only expected to check the correctness of articles in some limited disciplines like mathematics. Of course reviewers will report any errors they notice, but reviews generally focus on originality, relevance, clarity and potential interest to readers. It is unlikely that any reviewers looked at all the diffs and almost impossible that any of them studied the background to those diffs (which would require deep knowledge of Wikipedia as well as much more time than a typical reviewer devotes to a review). It is not valid to assume that peer-review bestows correctness. (I write as someone with almost 50 years of experience in academic publishing, albeit in a different field.)
• The Holocaust in Poland is the subject of fierce debate within academia, not just within Wikipedia. The debate spills into the public and political arenas even up to relations between governments. Few of the involved academics can be correctly described as neutral. In the case of Polish-Jewish, Grabowski is the main representative of one side of the debate and his article should be judged with that in mind. Our task in Wikipedia is to fairly present all sides of the debate, not to privilege one side. We need editors who can, within the constraints of policy, present all notable opinions present in reliable sources. Few editors can do this, not least because a large fraction of the sources are in Polish. Losing the main editors who can do justice to either side would be a disaster.
• Reading Grabowski's article. Editors who support his position are angels who are incapable of doing wrong, while those holding other views are devils pushing antisemitic canards. Black hats and white hats like old Westerns. All mistakes made by the black hats are deliberate, and a Wikipedia-wide conspiracy involving admins is hinted at darkly. Many of the examples have long disappeared, but this self-correcting nature of WP is not acknowledged. Nothing in the article, including historical claims, should be taken on faith and only adherence to reliable sources should be judged, not adherence to the "truth".
• The first example I checked. In 2007, Jacurek copy-pasted Holocaust survivor testimony about the difficulty of hiding. It included "Jews with the physical characteristics of curly black hair, dark eyes, dark complexion, a long nose were in special jeopardy". When Moonriddengirl flagged the copyvio in 2009, Piotrus responded by summarising and paraphrasing, reducing this sentence to "Jews with the specific physical characteristics were particularly vulnerable." For Grabowski, this was a malicious hint that "Jews are racially different from ethnic Poles" (p14). We should take this seriously?
• Personally I cannot envisage a useful outcome to this case and if it was up to me I would not embark on it.
• To editor GeneralNotability: USHMM knows nothing about Wikipedia processes. Are we really incapable of deciding for ourselves whether policy is being followed? Zero^talk 02:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @GeneralNotability: Even if they are entirely neutral as to the facts of history, why is that important here? Deciding the facts of history is not our task. Zero^talk 03:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't envy the role of the arbitrators here. They basically have three options:

• Decide that Volunteer Marek and company need to be hung up by their heels ... and thereby firmly enstate the frightening precedent that if you disagree with an Arbcom decision, you need to go write an article about it in a peer reviewed journal.
• Decide that the article is tainted by association with Icewhiz, and basically ignore it ... and thereby firmly enstate the no less frightening precedent that even writing an article in a peer reviewed journal won't change an Arbcom decision.
• Go point by point down the many claims of the article, extensively reviewing each one on its merits ... which basically means becoming experts in judging Polish WWII historical scholarship. Lordy.

As DeCausa writes, it's an act of courage to put this case up for consideration. I hope the arbitrators accept it and do it justice. Now, as Zero0000 writes, I find it hard to imagine what justice could even look like here. But that's why Zero, and I, are not arbitrators, for which I find regular cause to be grateful. Whatever the decision will be, many will be unhappy. Maybe I'll be unhappy. Heck, I'm unhappy just reading the journal article, clearly two sets of dedicated, knowledgeable, well-meaning people interested in this topic area hate each other with a passion. That's not the Wikipedia I like to think about. Yet, doing justice here is the job the arbcom signed up for: being the few and the proud, the man in the arena. That is what it means to be human, to know that you could make mistakes, even that you will make mistakes, and yet to try. You have to try, because not trying is definitely wrong. Go get 'em. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I notice two of our arbitrators are making statements in direct contradiction to each other on what it means to be listed as a party.

• User:CaptainEek writes I want to stress that being named as a party is not a sign of wrongdoing. It is a sign of knowledge about the issue.
• User:Barkeep49 writes I would like to reiterate my question of for people who are saying that we need to add Chapmansh as a party, what Wikipedia Policies and/or Guidelines have they potentially violated and what is the evidence (diff) to support that?

These can not both be correct statements. You're the arbitrators, gentlebeings. Make up your minds, does being named as a party mean solely a sign of potentially violating Policies or Guidelines or is it solely a sign of knowledge about the issue? See, already a mistake, and we haven't even started the case. Don't let it discourage you; you're the only arbcom we've got. Correct the issue and move on. --GRuban (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the articles in question, shortcomings in policies and guidelines lead to these problems on contentious topics. This can and often happens without violating the letter of conduct rules. I wish you the best and thank you for trying to resolve this using the tools that you have which is dealing with it as a conduct issue. But I'm not optimistic on that and please don't hurt any editors where it is not clearly warranted. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outing/ doxing Wikipedia editors has to be taken very seriously. Including off wiki-activities. Wikipedia needs anonymity to compensate for it otherwise being the most privacy-violating major website in the world for editors...it provides a publicly searchable database of everything an editor ever did and exactly when they did it. And broadcasting some otherwise-obscure "public" item needs to be considered to be a form of it. I urge you to take up anything related to that. North8000 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this, but User:Chapmansh acknowledges that she is the Shira Klein that wrote this article. I'd like to flag for the committee that she is currently overseeing a Wiki Education course called Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Chapman University/Jewish Life from Napoleon to Hitler (Spring 2023). She also taught this course in 2021, [24] and student editors in that edition of the course focused on the Holocaust. Given that she has prompted an ArbCom case about coordinated editing on Wikipedia w.r.t. POV-pushing in Holocaust topics, it may be prudent to not oversee a coordinated editing group on the subject of the Holocaust. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should add on that while I don't see any behavioural problems with edits in that course in 2021, given that this case is shaping up to be the culmination of one of the biggest sagas of WikiDrama in this website's history, it would probably best for student editors to avoid being brought into it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on this point can be found on this[25] linked WP:EDUN thread. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom does accept this case, the number of words editors are alotted should be greatly increased. The essay has hundreds of diffs; editors need space to rebut all this. Even the linked essay complains about how evidence is made unclear when constrained by the committee's strict word limit. Increasing the word/diff limits during evidence should be broadly agreeable to all parties.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: if 500/30 applies here the two individuals that wrote the article will be unable to directly participate in the arbitration proceedings. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 13:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I would say that your proposal as currently stated would violate WP:5P3. On a fundamental level, our lack of a formalized peer-review process is what distinguishes us from Nupedia and Citizendium. Knocking down WP:5P3 because we need to enforce WP:5P2 (WP:NPOV) is probably not a good idea, given that our project is explicitly founded on all five of the pillars. If there's a big takeaway from this drama, it's that one "who fights monsters" (i.e. Icewhiz) ruins one's credibility by compromising on ethical principles. That being said, some kind of Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian in Residence program for a Holocaust research institute would be a proposal that I believe could get more consensus. At the very least, the lengthy piece from Grabowski and Klein shows that knowledgeable academics are willing to engage with this website on controversial topics.

In particular, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is knowledgeable, neutral, and has experience with English-language encyclopedia writing (see the Holocaust Encyclopedia). If we are going to seek external input, I believe it would be less controversial and less abusable to collaborate with institutions rather than than particular individuals.
Many people have brought up the WP:FRAMBAN as a poor example of arbitrator conduct, but I would say that the WP:FRAMBAN shows the Wikimedia Foundation views the Arbitration Committee as being able to speak on behalf of the broader English Wikipedia in de:shitstorms. If there is a need for outside intervention, ArbCom should be the body to request this help from the WMF. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I have zero faith, replying to Chess, in institutions, which however admirable, suffer from political and other pressures. Wikipedia is an institution itself, and the article that prompted this shows that our institutions cannot choose unbiased experts on their own. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss in regards to what to say about the underlying subject matter because I don't understand what's going on here and everything is way above my level of expertise (which is none). But given that Jacinda01 was named as a party and GizzyCatBella's response to that, I thought I might have something relevant to say. I'm sure that in a CT (and given what I understand about the whole Icewhiz craziness) is that they're actually are a lot of sockpuppets running around and that'd be frustrating to deal with. But not everyone is a sockpuppet. I consider Levivich to be one of my friends. I think it's unfair that people imply that he's a sockpuppet (even as recently as this past summer [26]). If this is beyond the purview of the case, I understand. Personally I'd just feel better if someone said this sort of thing was not okay. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my concerns a bit more, reading this may be helpful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not familiar with this dispute, but active in adjacent subjects.

I’m concerned about how this is framed through public shaming by a third party. I hope it doesn’t set the specific agenda for this action. But it points to a broader problem, of which this is one manifestation.

Editing in contentious topics is fraught. Despite discretionary and general sanctions, it’s working in a hostile environment. There is little community or admin reinforcement of good behaviour or discouragement of bad behaviour. Bitter disputes arise and threaten to escalate constantly, and one always chooses between giving up on an article or subject, or having to stand up for some principle of guidelines or content against unreasonable argumentation and passive and overt denigration of one’s arguments, views, or even identity. Editors cannot count on the protection of behavioural and editing guidelines, unless they are willing to aggressively pursue intimidating dispute-resolution cases where the results appear to depend on the whim of a random or not-so-random closer. It’s easy to become constantly on edge in the face of implied threats to try to bring action, even over purely good-faith editing.

I don’t know if there are “groups” coordinating “zealous handiwork.” I’ve been on either side of cordial and unpleasant disputes with several of the named editors. But an editor in a contentious topic definitely feels the tyranny of coincidental WP:BIAS by a random majority in numerous discussions.

I hope the Arbitration Committee accepts this as an opportunity to identify systemic problems with editing in contentious subjects and to make recommendations or take action. A good start would be to simply encourage consistent and fair enforcement of the existing rules, tempering the general level of fear and loathing. —Michael Z. 17:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit in all this is that if the community, admins, and arbitrators had better ensured a collaborative and self-moderating environment, all these names would not have been publicly pilloried in the first place. I’d rather we acknowledge our shared responsibility and address systemic problems, than see Arbcom selectively pursue someone because they happened to be active in some particular academics’ chosen subject area when they were acting within the parameters permitted by our flawed system. Let’s not start any show trials unless the reign of terror is to equitably extend to every single contentious topic where biases differ.  —Michael Z. 18:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, what precedent is set? If one doesn’t want to file a complaint, then maybe shop around an academic paper, get a publication credit, and have ArbCom do all the work? Publish a study to get 25 articles in one subject field cleaned up? Cite some editors’ diffs to get them topic-banned?

Possible actions should consider what initiated this case. Not that no one should face responsibility. But a public complaint from off-wiki seems like an opportunity to publicly address a systemic problem. But potentially risky to set it up as an acceptable rationale with serious repercussions to individuals.  —Michael Z. 22:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“All parties listed were named” in the article. But not all editors named are listed parties. —Michael Z. 06:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In accepting a case, I urge ArbCom to spell out, from the start, some precise expectations about what does or does not constitute evidence for the case. What ArbCom traditionally treats as evidence – diffs and such – should be relied on as evidence, whereas "the academics who wrote the paper said so, and that's embarrassing for us" should not stand on its own as evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share Floq's view about it being a "bad look" to omit the usernames of current and past Arbs, even if this is only a matter of appearance and not of substance. Just as a matter of good appearances, I think ArbCom should list, above, the usernames of all Arbs mentioned in the article, simply as information, and not necessarily with a sense of making them parties. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before starting the case, it will also be essential to articulate the scope, and to do so in a precise and narrow way that doesn't let it spread beyond manageable bounds. Perhaps limit it to:

1. Misrepresenting what sources actually say,
2. Pushing to include/exclude sources in ways that disrupt consensus, and
3. Attacking/impugning/harassing other editors.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is absolutely essential that ArbCom spell out exactly how the case will work, who will or will not be eligible to be a party and why, what kinds of evidence will or will not be in scope (including off-site outing), what kind of "standing" the academic article will have, and how discussions will be organized/threaded, beforehand. Opening the case and then trying to figure these things out will go very badly, so please don't think that you can put it off. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having an outside expert tell the community what content to include is beyond ArbCom's jurisdiction.

Overreacting to Icewhiz is human nature, and not sanctionable. But making policy-violating edits, because of that, is, and should be in-scope.

It is longstanding community consensus that participating in off-site harassment/outing is sanctionable. This is one of the most serious issues in this case, and it needs to be in-scope, with parties added. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my last sentence above was too vague. It would be a monumental failure for ArbCom not to add Chapmansh as a party. This has nothing to do with her level of content editing. It is because she violated the outing policy. There's nothing wrong with that, in terms of the academic journal's terms of use, or her academic institution's. But there's everything wrong with that, in terms of being able to edit here. She can publish what she wants, and pursue her career as she wants, but she should be disqualified from editing here, or using Wikipedia to advance her career. Editors who are instructors in class assignments are still editors, and they have to follow the same policies as everyone else. If a user who made few edits outed another editor, we would still sanction them, so the fact that Chapmansh does not do much content editing is not an excuse. If a user who wrote numerous FAs outed another editor, we would still sanction them, so the fact that class assignments are a positive contribution isn't one either. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the motion, the way that it is written, it's hardly worth bothering to add her at all, but I see that the Committee has already made up its mind. There will come a time when you will regret the third point in that motion, because it will inevitably be used in the future to justify harassment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question to ArbCom about what the motion means. If Chapmansh participates on case pages as a party, will it be considered disruptive if another editor civilly asks her, on case pages or elsewhere onsite, about her views on obeying the outing policy? In other words, will it be considered a personal attack on Chapmansh, about something that has already been deemed settled? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Twitter account eponymous to one of the mainstays of this (would-be) case has accused two highly reputed scholars of publishing material ghost-written by Icewhiz. While such paranoia may or may not be justified in light of Icewhiz's disruptive activities, such behaviour does disservice to our project. Clerk note: link has been recieved by ArbCom

I will also urge Arbcom to tread cautiously; pace what Piotrus and others say, the Polish Right's view on Holocaust is rejected by almost every acclaimed Holocaust scholar outside of Poland. It won't take long for the authors of the essay to get a long list of signatories in support. And the cited evidence is extraordinarily strong; they have, clearly, done their homework. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ThadeusOfNazereth hits the nail on the head. As Levivich (and I believe, others) have noted, the go-to behaviour of a set of certain POV pushers has been to scream "Icewhiz" and claim immunity. I have no sympathies for a Office-banned editor but the conduct of the rest — esp. around core content policies — needs probing by ArbCom. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have wondered whether the paper at hand was peer-reviewed. I emailed the journal's editorial team, and I received a response that said "Indeed, the article "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" was subject to peer-review prior to its publication." I forwarded the full email to Arbcom. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the case for excluding Chapmansh as a party is based on the lack of diff evidence for misconduct. I urge the arbitrators to consider whether it makes sense to single Chapmansh out for this treatment, since many of the listed potential parties have had no such evidence presented against them. If the committee accepts this case, do they intend to remove all potential parties for whom no diff evidence has been provided? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bk49. The two-prong test is reasonable: (a) an articulation of which PAGs have been potentially violated and (b) diff evidence for such a violation. I assume that allegations/diffs in the paper count. I looked as far as the first four parties, and the first three don't yet pass the test, failing both prongs. François Robere is mentioned in the paper as participating in an edit war, and diffs are provided. You mention "implicit suggestion of uneven treatment", but I was more concerned about possible future uneven treatment: that editors will be named parties in an accepted case despite lack of specific allegations and evidence, with no one speaking up for them to say "why?". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have some thoughts I'd like to share, but not enough time to adequately summarize them. I should be able to post by 06:00 UTC. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A disclaimer: I am not involved in this dispute, have (AFAIK) never edited in this topic, and have no more knowledge of Jewish/WWII history than any other college-educated adult.

I echo the concerns outlined by GRuban. I'm concerned that the committee's usual approach of addressing conduct issues while delegating the content issues to the community just won't cut it here. What is being alleged is a calculated, long-term effort to undermine Wikipedia's NPOV and manipulate article content by misrepresenting sources, introducing non-neutral and unreliable sources to articles, and giving undue weight to narratives that are not taken seriously by mainstream academics. To properly evaluate the merits of this extraordinary claim, I believe the committee needs to examine both article content and user conduct, as the two are inextricably intertwined. I'm aware that this would directly violate Wikipedia's arbitration policy, but I worry that failing to do so would result in a decision based on a narrow view that could have serious long-term consequences for the reliability of Wikipedia, which is a big deal. Social media platforms with billions of daily users like Facebook and YouTube outsource fact-checking to Wikipedia. A myopic decision here could result in untold numbers of people being fed a distorted view of Jewish/WWII history, which could have very real consequences given the recent amplification of violently antisemitic rhetoric by mainstream public figures. ArbCom needs to get this right.

I'm concerned that the committee, as a group of self-selected volunteers, is not equipped to do so. I have unending respect for arbitrators for dealing with the unending succession of maelstroms tossed in their direction, and I'm impressed by their willingness to stick their necks out by initiating this process. Unfortunately, I believe a complete examination of the claims made in the article may require an expertise in Jewish/WWII history, which (AFAIK) the sitting arbitrators lack. I urge the committee to consider consulting with an independent outside expert, or several experts. Again, this would be a radical departure from established practices, but I think a liberal application of IAR to uphold Wikipedia's five pillars is justified and necessary given the unprecedented nature of this proceeding.

Of course, this is all very easy for me to say. I'm neither Jewish nor Polish, and haven't touched this topic with a 100-meter laser pointer. I haven't been the subject of doxxing or harassment by a vicious LTA. My opinion probably shouldn't carry much weight here, but I figured it might be worth sharing. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Fair point, but then what? Established community-based processes have been incapable of resolving the content issues, which seems unlikely to change. The only other alternative I can think of is WMF intervention similar to what happened on arwiki, which would be antithetical to 5P3 and, I assume, deeply unpopular. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a party to this case and have no plans to participate in any way when ArbCom inevitably accepts this, but I want to note my disappointment at the wide array of WP:ASPERSIONS being cast here, including people alleging the peer-review process was bypassed, that the article was somehow ghostwritten by a banned editor, and that one of the authors wrote the article to improve their own Wikipedia coverage. To an uninvolved editor, it reads like conspiracy-minded fear-mongering, and is frankly evidence that whatever results from this case will be doomed from the beginning. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what ArbCom can usefully do here, given that any actual arbitration would require looking at the content and would therefore be without its remit. I would suggest that the journal paper in question be given limited weight at least because of the obvious association with Icewhiz. As academics, the authors should be well aware that being "right" does not justify misconduct; an academic who behaved the way Icewhiz has towards other Wikipedia editors in a university or academic publishing environment wold no more be allowed to publish in the name of that institution than Icewhiz is allowed to edit Wikipedia. It is disappointing that somebody whose conduct was so abhorrent has been treated so sympathetically in the journal.

The dispute on Wikipedia will not go away until the dispute in the real world does, as is the case for all ethno-political conflicts, which make up the vast majority of the recognised contentious topics. We try to manage editor conduct but administrators and arbitrators are not qualified to be arbiters of content. We also have limited means at our disposal to deal with people who have no interest in following our policies and who have the time and resources to create many accounts to evade blocks or topic bans.

One thing that might help, if there were academics who would play ball, is to have some sort of arbitration (in the real-world sense, not the Wikipedia sense) where a panel of academics can discuss things like reliability of sources and factual accuracy with Wikipedia editors, but the results of those discussions would be binding unless new sources were presented.

Finally, I do think it would help if some the more prolific editors in the topic area voluntarily took a step back to allow cooler heads to prevail and avoid the perception that it is dominated by small groups of closely aligned editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Since ArbCom is obviously going to accept its own case request even though it's not sure what problem it wants to solve nor whether it's capable of solving it, it might be an idea to proceed initially without a list of parties but a clear idea of the sort of evidence you want to receive, but everyone who presents evidence (except for uninvolved admins acting as such) automatically becomes a party and parties can be added as evidence is presented. That might stand a chance of leading to inquisitorial rather than adversarial proceedings. It might also remove the stigma of being listed as a party, and assuage some of the concerns about party selection being based on the JHR piece. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclosure: I emailed the committee prior to posting here, but have further thoughts at this stage.) Mainly I'm here to +1 the idea that User:Chapmansh should be added as a party to the case. Clearly the committee has already received evidence from her (in the form of the precipitating paper), and I think the optics are best for all involved if she is formally invited to participate in the case process.

@Barkeep49: my concerns regarding Chapmansh are twofold: first that there's the impression to outsiders that only administrators and "the distortionist clique" are involved in the discussion, and more saliently that Chapmansh may not even be aware of the proceedings. Their last edit was nearly three weeks ago, and despite being involved in WikiEd they may not watchlist ARC, AN, or VPP. The same purpose would be served by a discreet email or talk page message along the lines of "we opened a case about the issues discussed in a paper you are credited as coauthor on; if you have any further information that didn't make it to the final publication now's the time to tell us".

@Buffs: it seems silly and dangerous to invite a foundation-banned harasser to comment on an arbitration case simply because their edits are involved, but Icewhiz does seem to have been invited already through his probable sock User:Jacinda01 (see above comment by User:GizzyCatBella).

Despite a ban, procedurally shouldn't Icewhiz be invited to participate? It is more than a little unseemly to repeatedly condemn someone without the opportunity to even speak in their own defense (also, I'm not saying I endorse such behavior; this is merely a procedural note). This clearly seems to be a backdoor attempt to disrupt WP by a blocked editor with battleground behaviors, however, that does not mean that all of these complaints are without validity. Such claims should be examined on their own merits and decided accordingly. The disruption should be assessed as well. Buffs (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I understand, but it's also kind of my point. By taking up this matter (and it's my understanding that the impetus of this is Icewhiz himself) you are effectively including a wide swath of his opinions in the matter. This effectively makes public publications a back door to having views aired even though they are banned. If we've decided to discount their opinions, a summary statement from WMF would be much more appropriate, not a hearing to discuss said claims. I think it would be MUCH more effective and appropriate to open such a ban to have such opinions aired publicly so they can be publicly rejected/accepted. YMMV. I do not envy your choices in this matter and wish ArbCom the best of luck. Thank you for responding to my remark; no reply is needed unless you want more info.

I think that, given the volume of information presented, ArbCom should allow reasonable extensions to the word limit. Buffs (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: if all you are looking for is for someone to submit this request, consider it my request (I've never been involved until now). This is a current problem whose roots lie in the past. It needs to be resolved. Buffs (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the article are urgent and some of the evidence presented is chilling. While I do have reservations pertaining to the methodology of the Grabowski/Klein publication, its at times worryingly personal tone, and its apparent lack of effective solutions to the problems outlined (especially relative to the sheer number of problems), I think that questioning the validity of the article as a whole is a very dangerous path to take. I believe that the case has serious potential ramifications for the reliability of Wikipedia more broadly and that its importance goes beyond the conduct of named and/or editors involved. (For the record, I do not wish to make any comments regarding the conduct of parties named or involved, and my statement refers only to the importance and relevance of this case.) The Arbitration Committee should accept this case to, at the very least, thoughtfully deliberate on the problem and determine whether any recommendations or solutions can be found before the case reaches WMF. The article's mention of the Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment and WMF's direct involvement–which seems to be the only resolution the article seriously proposes–makes me worried that the subject of Wikipedia's apparent historical distortion of the history of the Holocaust might rapidly escalate to a point where it will no longer be within the ArbCom's scope. I am not trying to cause panic and/or rush the process; I firmly believe it should and can still be deliberated on and resolved by the enwiki community. Ppt91 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani (Edit: reply amended to fit within word limit). I am deeply grateful for your thoughtful statement. It is likely the most incisive take on the matter I've read. Two broader points I wanted to add/clarify.:1. The main issue in the article relates to what they perceive as persistent ideological bent rooted in the long-standing historiographical dispute in Poland specifically. Since 2015, ultranationalist views are indeed no longer fringe and the government's attempts to intervene in scholarship are egregious. The authors seem to extrapolate historiographical conflict in Poland to address the Holocaust more broadly, which is problematic to say the least. Often without sufficient evidence or with outdated evidence, they draw a direct comparison between involved editors and vicious right-wing individuals in Poland. Nonetheless, their fundamental case for the lack of NPOV—related to secondary sources used for enwiki articles discussed—is still solid and I think can still be addressed by ArbCom and editors.:2. I believe that Snyder's work is terrific and also think highly of Browning. However, engaging external academics might escalate the case and, as I mentioned in my original reply, could lead to the direct involvement of WMF. Any possible media coverage resulting from their involvement would be detrimental to the case; the Fram case in 2019, while obviously completely different, was covered by Slate and BuzzFeed which, if I remember correctly, had significant impact on how the case would later progress. Ppt91 (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not named and not involved, and have never (as I can recall) edited the subject area. The case comes from an academic journal, and I comment as frequent academic reviewer, author and editor. Zero0000 put it very well. Peer-review is virtually never a fact check (as many non-academics think). Peer-review is no guarantee for being right. What is more, peer-review varies a lot. In top journals in my field, peer-review means three independent reviewers writing several pages of comments, an associate editor adding their own assessment, and the editor-in-chief finally deciding. In most good journals, two reviewers write a page or two. In more minor journals, one or two reviewers may write only a paragraph or two, no AE involved.
With due respect to the journal in question, it would qualify as a minor journal (looking at the journal metrics at its web page) in which peer-review would typically be rather easy. Again, no disrespect intended to the journal, and I cannot know its review process; generally speaking, journals with these metrics do not feature extensive peer-review processes.
I'm no expert neither on the Holocaust nor on Poland, and cannot speak to the accuracy of the article (although I can comment on the methodology of it, which I find simplistic and would have challenged if used in my own field). My comment is merely to point out that the accuracy of the charges in the article cannot be assumed to be verified just because it is peer-reviewed. Jeppiz (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an editor who is active in the Polish Holocaust content area, it's not a topic I'm overly familiar with or interested in. However I did read the paper that lead us to this point, and I was the editor who started a related discussion on this at VPP. I started that discussion because I recognised the generalised behaviours that were described in that paper playing out in other contentious content areas in which I am active.

While I'm certain that editor conduct will form a significant proportion of this case should it be accepted, I would like to strongly urge that the committee not just look at conduct issues in isolation. I would like to request that as part of their assessment, the committee also looks at how our current policies and guidelines enable or allow for this type of issue to both occur. While removing disruptive editors from a contentious topic would naturally help with the immediate conduct problems, by not addressing the shortcomings that allowed for this to become an issue the committee is basically setting itself up for another case in this or any number of other CT content areas in the future.

I recognise that actually changing PAGs is out of scope of the committee's role. However presenting the community with information on how PAGs can and are being subverted along with recommendations for how the community itself could endeavour to solve the issue by updating the relevant PAGs is (I think) not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage arbitrators voting accept to provide additional clarity on what they expect the structure of this unusual arbitration case to look like. This is the first time I've ever seen ArbCom request a case sua sponte—typically, a case would be requested by a particular party to a dispute who would presumably also be a main participant in the evidence and workshop phase. In this case, however, it seems the relevant controversy involves in large part observers who are unlikely to actually participate on-wiki in this case. Because of that, I'm not sure how effective a traditional arbitration case is going to be at collecting evidence to "break the back" of a dispute. Perhaps one solution would be to proceed by entering the entire Grabowski/Klein article into evidence as if the authors had written the essay on-wiki, and then use the evidence phase to allow others to respond to or complement the claims made in the article. Mz7 (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to engage an uninvolved historian who focuses on the Holocaust in Poland to help Arbcom wade through this case's thornily intertwined content and conduct issues? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: If the bar for Chapmansh being added as a party is I believe in only adding a party where there is some expectation that evidence of misconduct can be shown, why are 20+ people being listed as suggested parties simply for being named in the article which Chapmansh wrote? Even though the users on that list are not being formally accused of anything (yet), it still remains that they are potential parties but the person who named them is not a party or at least on the list themselves. Pinguinn 🐧 04:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Firefangledfeathers and Floquenbeam above, my concern about incongruous treatment is less about getting Chapmansh added as a party and more for the people already named as potential parties. I'm uncomfortable with the concept of someone writing an offwiki article calling out users by name and ArbCom using the names wholesale for a list of potential parties to a case. Certainly not all of these users will end up being parties, but we ought not to defer to outside actors to determine even this potential list. This case's aim is to critically examine the claims and evidence presented in the article, and the authors' choices of who and who not to name in the article is a conscious part of that presentation and should not be taken at face value. Pinguinn 🐧 06:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above by Zero0000 is the most significant statement of this situation that I have read, and I associate myself with it. I urge ArbCom to give it particular attention for guidance as to whether or not to take this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse the #Comment from Harry Mitchell, the #Statement by Drmies and the #Statement by Floq, all of whom speak good sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As someone on the outside looking in, I am completely mystified by an Arbitration which has clearly been provoked by an article in an academic journal, and the decision not to include as a party the co-author, User:Chapmansh, who is an editor here. If the extensive list of parties named are listed because of claims made in the article, surely if the evidence shows that those claims are, to any extent, inappropriate, then Chapmansh should be judged for their attacks on those editors, whether they took place on-wiki or off. By opening the case, ArbCom has itself brought that off-wiki behavior onto Wikipedia, and made it the proper subject of examination here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that before accepting as a committee, Arbcom make clear to themselves and others the exact conduct issues that can be under consideration. I believe going in with the broad ambit of "editor conduct in this area" contains a trap, which is that the most prominent question would seem to be "Has a group of editors systematically introduced bias into articles in this area?" - that being the fundamental bone of contention over the last years (at least to my knowledge), and the focus of the journal article. I would suggest that this is a question that Arbcom can not tackle without, in effect, making a ruling on a very complex content issue - that is, what is the objective academic and public consensus, and are we representing it? This type of question is what the WP groupmind excels at, via the slow and grindy process of talk page discussions. The committee is simply not equipped to do that. It can't even reasonably accept evidence on that question without choosing a side in the content dispute that is splitting not only Wikipedia but general scholarship. At the same time, it is exactly the question that a casual observer would expect to be front and center; again, mostly due to the paper that kicked this off being entirely focused on it. So I would urge the arbitrators to clarify their thinking on this matter, and whether there will be enough of a conduct issue left to get a good grip on, if the core concern has to be cut out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The handling of major off-wiki topic disputes on-wiki is plagued by the following issues:

1. Most editors on Wikipedia are either strongly biased on the topic or highly ignorant about it. Admins and arbs generally fit the latter; they are expected to, and generally do, recuse when they are the former.
2. There is little relationship between the relative truth behind these disputes and the relative sizes of the groups trying to skew Wikipedia in each direction.
3. It's very easy for established users who share a strong bias to group together and to pick up less established users along the way.
4. Sanctions are given by admins who are ignorant in the topic. As a result, they are more likely to be based on a consensus by a group dominated by skewed users than by the reliability and true representation of the underlying sources. A user who was wrongly banned is more likely to sock than to abandon the topic to the other side, and sock fighting will discourage innocent newcomers from helping out.
5. All external sources are either biased themselves, or summarize biased sources with what they believe to be a neutral balance (although they may be wrong). Any attempt on our part to generate NPOV is OR. On the other hand, according to NPOV itself, NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" (emphasis and links in original).
6. Newcomers who would help try and neutralize the skewing users are likely to have few other edits, which tends to make their opinions considered worth less.
7. The unlikely case of a user with a real understanding who tries to fix things is likely to eitherbe scared off or to be able to remain by fighting back; in the latter case, they will ultimately be sanctioned for the fighting. He who fights monsters will either become a monster himself and be punished for it (e.g Icewhiz) or be scared away from the fight; it's nearly impossible to handle a group of monsters simultaneously.

Unless these issues can be solved on all topics, we will never be able to reach our goal of NPOV. This is what's happening here.

1. The linked article must not be assumed to be true; however, reasonable effort must be made to determine how true each of its primary claims is.
2. Intentional distortion is probably enough to earn a user a site ban - if you can't be trusted to act in good faith, how can you be trusted? Unintentional distortion is a much lower issue, and can probably be handled with topic bans and possibly interaction bans.
3. It's nearly impossible to tell, just from public on-wiki evidence, the difference between off-wiki coordination on one hand, and the combination of common interest, common POV and common watched pages (including each other's talk pages) on the other. The latter is likely to violate NPOV, but doesn't violate any other policy.
4. Had Chapmansh made an on-wiki request for ArbCom, if the case were open, her behavior on the topic would have been looked at for violating any policies; going to an outside source to get this request going should certainly not be any better for her than that.
5. I have seen some claims that ArbCom didn't handle this last time because they were too busy with Fram. Ironically, this and Fram have one major common point: the inability of Wikipedia to go against issues where the wrong side has too many supporters - be it the unblockables, or many POV pushers in the same direction. Interestingly enough, the user behind the last attempt to get ArbCom to look into this issue, User:Jehochman, also was among those who got ArbCom to start looking into the Fram case.
6. The charge of OUTing can be determined without a case. It's sufficient that the users have ever placed this information in public view willingly, and that this can still be seen on the site in question. On sites such as Wikipedia, where page history is public, the latter part is never a problem.

@Levivich:According to the linked article, you are on the solution side, and your evidence would be likely to be useful here. According do the openning statement, all users whose names appear in the article are listed as parties, unless they are dead, indef-blocked or -banned, or ArbCom members (current or former). Animal lover |666| 11:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555:: That we reached the point of a paper being published is a sign of an on-going failure of the administration (including ArbCom) of dealing with this situation. There are 3 possibilities of what will happen: ArbCom will handle the situation now; an already toxic situation will get worse, including useful editors either feeling like they're being kicked off Wikipedia or becoming Icewhiz #2, possibly triggering a case; or an other article being published. I believe the first is the least bad of these. Animal lover |666| 09:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom is going to have a nightmare of a job here, as whatever the article may desire, they can't start ruling on content issues in the process of trying to work on the conduct aspects.

Zero000 correctly notes that just because something has been peer-reviewed, does not mean that the reviewers have done fact checking for each diff in it - and discussions elsewhere on and off-wiki have already raised multiple factual failings in the article, non-included interviews, significant missed or agenda-based statements (most notably regarding Icewhiz and an "unfair ban"). All of which make it questionable to start a case based off this article, and an absolute need not to allow the article to act as an evidence source. The diffs within it exist on wikipedia so can be used as free-standing evidence, but the analysis and accusations by the authors can't inherently just be bought in.

Finally, I do have a query whether certain of the accusations raised against an editor in the article would be viewed as off-wiki aspersion-casting if done in a different forum - I believe the co-author has an account? And as such that may be worth viewing alongside the primary nexus of the case complaint(s). Nosebagbear (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also somewhat querying positions such as those of @Renaati: - creating such a dual purpose function would probably require arbcom (since we're here) and a community consensus to create a WP:CONEXCEPT addition on this scale. I disagree rather more firmly with @SamX:'s pov - as they are note, ARBPOL clearly would prohibit that, and I can't see any way that ARBCOM can IAR into the community's scope without community agreement. That would be akin to the DYK team concurring amongst themselves they would IAR to decide today's FA. SamX also notes this would be done to uphold the pillars but their full approach would seem to violate pillar 3. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SamX: - regarding the conexcept aspect, you could start an RfC for the community to either create or let ArbCom create such a group. The latter would probably still violate ARBPOL, but would be a far more reasonable IAR nature in an area that normally can't have such. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Elmidae and Zero's wise cautions. The writers of that piece use as a primary source an editor with an aggressive ultranationalist approach to wiki. One should commission and pay a professional fee, to area experts like Timothy Snyder and Christopher Browning to rewrite two or more versions of our page, and work from there.Snyder's books find a middle ground between the two POVs here. I have zero faith, replying to Chess, in institutions, which however admirable, suffer from political and other pressures.

The words Holocaust and Shoah are used as synonyms, whereas the former is the general term for the over 10 million murdered deliberately on racial grounds, (some argue for figures as high as 17 million), while the Shoah is specific for the roughly half of that number who were Jewish victims of the same genocidal policy. In Italy a week is dedicated every year to recalling the Holocaust, but, overwhelmingly the focus is on the Shoah, and Slavic peoples are rarely featured or mentioned as also victims on a massive scale. Generalplan Ost, which emerged contemporaneously with the Wannsee decision to exterminate the Jews, foresaw the 'disappearance' of the majority (20-30 million) of Ukrainians, Russians and Poles, the annihilation of their ethnicities. When Raul Hilberg undertook to study the Holocaust he was strongly advised to ignore it by his (Jewish) supervisors. 60 years later we have,thankfully, a virtual industry of meticulous studies on every aspect of the Shoah. Histories in Eastern Europe of the phenomenon of the larger Holocaust lag far behind, and are often entrammeled by nationalist rereadings that aim to challenge the Shoah model's emphasis on Jewish victims by (a) establishing the vast scale of genocidal actions affecting their respective populations (b) deflecting narratives of complicity by highlighting cases where Poles etc., saved Jews (c) implicating some Jewish groups as culpable of a number of massacres, either as resistance groups or because of the significant numbers of Jewish communists, and the indiscriminate savagery of many USSR acts against Western Slavic peoples. All this is complicated by the political quarrels between those states and Israel over WW2 responsibilities, the institutionalization of Holocaust/Shoah commemoration, and the gruesome use of the Holocaust to promote special claims on the way the world recalls this past.Nishidani (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: Wikipedia is an institution itself, and the article that prompted this shows that our institutions cannot choose unbiased experts on their own

A former CEO of the Presidio of San Francisco once told me that after receiving the approval of Congress, he turned up and asked the secretary to prepare a schedule so that he could interview all the staff. The list had already between prepared. He looked at it, and ordered it to be reorganized by inverting the pyramid. He didn’t want to start with the vice.director and then go down the hierarchy. He wished to begin with the ground staff, janitors, gardeners, park officers and police, and after he’d heard them all out, only then work his way up through the higher ranks of command, meeting the vice director last

As a content peon dickering in the seed banks of our florilegium for 17 years, with some expertise also in pruning the rampant efflorescences of this collective endeavor, I ignore the hierarchy and stick to my level of competence, which also extends to the sociology of knowledge. When you state that the jejeunely biased and methodologically inept article we have ‘shows’ i.e. demonstrates that ‘our institutions cannot choose unbiased experts on their own’ you make several assumptions, the most egregious of which is asserting an expert can be ‘unbiased’. I won’t rewrite here the essay on my page where I am sketching out some of the issues in the ‘institutionalization’ (that word also means ‘to straightjacket in an asylum a person deemed to be a social threat’) of scholarship, for submissions here must be laconic.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite conflicting that arbitrator CaptainEek said "I want to stress that being named as a party is not a sign of wrongdoing" [29] while arbitrator Barkeep49 said "I believe in only adding a party where there is some expectation that evidence of misconduct can be shown" [30]. WP:ARBGUIDE, WP:ARBINFO, and WP:ARBPOL all appear to be silent on the issue. We have over two dozen parties to this case. Is there really evidence of any kind to support misbehavior for each of them? If not, what criteria do you use then to name parties to a case? This needs to be clarified, and preferably codified for the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes the claim there are editors in this topic area habitually misrepresenting reliable sources and using unreliable sources (among other troubling but more easily recognised behaviours).

If you don't have the intention, time, or energy to do the reading required to identify discredited sources and misrepresentation, decline this case and pass it across to the WMF. Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those who may not know me, I am the editor who filed the 2021-2022 request for arbitration regarding this topic area. I am glad the topic area is about to receive the deep scrutiny it needs. In my experience, such longstanding problems only persist when there is significant misconduct, collusion, and/or corruption. This is a situation where ArbCom can shine, and I thank the arbitrators in advance for their hard work. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have seen many indications that the standard editing process has been failing badly, for many years. I’d like to know if those opposing this case can recommend a better alternative than arbitration, or if they are suggesting that the status quo is acceptable. What do you propose we do? Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an academic, User:Chapmansh has ethical obligations that are different from Wikipedia policy. Unless there is a tight nexus between her editing and her real-life writing (e.g. exporting her own Wikipedia disputes to an academic journal to gain on-wiki advantage), we should not attempt to regulate her writing. Academia and the courts will do that separately. It does not look like her Wikipedia activities are entangled with her writing, but it is not necessarily harmful to include her as a party and verify that appearances are accurate. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In real-life it is quite common for the litigants or the court to designate neutral experts to explain the evidence. Experts may also be engaged during university hearings related to student or faculty misconduct, which are similar to Wikipedia's arbitration process. ArbCom may want to engage at least one topic area expert because this appears to be a complex dispute. You will need to decide which editors are merely confused, and which ones, if any, are acting with reckless disregard for policy (or worse). Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees:, this error you mention looks like a url encoding issue (common). I’d wager 99% it’s a problem with the website rather than the authors. Jehochman ^Talk 00:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the merits of the case. I just want to suggest to Arbs that what ever you do here may create a helpful roadmap for anyone in future with serious content disputes. i.e. You will highlight that the way get things changed is to publish a paper, name people you don't like, and editors and pundits will point to what you do next as a template for what they expect in future. Maybe that is OK, maybe that is good, maybe you will regret things if you don't consider that now. I hope this is helpful. Best of luck, I don't envy your role. CT55555(talk) 19:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of thoughts after reading this discussion and (a few parts of) the essay. While I can see why a case is warranted, the inclusion/exclusion criteria are questionable. User:Chapmansh should be included as a party, otherwise we are setting a precedent of someone using their RL position to attack other editors outside of Wikipedia, provoking a case against them within Wikipedia, and avoiding being held accountable for their statements. And I am not suggesting that Chapmansh said anything wrong (or right, or inaccurate), but she should be part of the discussion, especially if the basis of the case is, as per User:CaptainEek, that 'being named as a party is not a sign of wrongdoing'. If otherwise, as User:Barkeep49 said, the addition of a party is only occurring when there is an expectation that evidence of misconduct can be shown, then the arbitrators have done a terrible job so far by adding people who, according to the essay itself, have done nothing wrong (nor, considering the big picture, have played any significant role), e.g. the case of User:Voceditenore, whose requested removal from the case I certainly support. If the Voceditenore's single, isolated comment/opinion quoted in the essay is enough for a claim of potential misconduct, then this is a Kafkaesque trial (and I would be definitely scared by having someone like Barkeep49 as a judge). And if a single, isolated comment (irrespective of whether it is right or wrong) can lead to someone being accused of potential misconduct in an ArbCom case, then this sounds like an apparent invitation to neutral, non-SPA and occasional editors to not participate in discussions in these sensitive areas, and to leave them in the hands of opposite POV-pushers and biased editors. --Cavarrone 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments about the few edits Chapmansh made and that "they haven't actually edited in the topic area" do not seem very convincing to me. It sounds me like that old "finger-pointing-at-the-moon" story. She co-wrote a whole essay about edits and editors in the topic area which is being used as basis for an Arbcom case and to identify all the involved parties, for God's sake! evidently I am too naive not to realise that she is not involved in the case and that users like Voceditenore or administrator like Drmies are involved on the basis of a single comment, but I console myself by seeing that this striking omission puzzles numerous others on here (editors on opposite sides, which is quite significant). --Cavarrone 23:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited or mediated in the area of the Holocaust in Poland, but I have a few thoughts and comments about this case request. First, however, I am put in mind of an old saying: "If the task be great or small, do it well, or not at all." The task at hand, reviewing the editing of articles on the Holocaust in Poland, which must address the serious allegations made in the G&K paper, is a great task. If it cannot be done well, it should not be done at all. The G&K paper makes very serious allegations about the corruption of the editorial process of the English Wikipedia by distortionists. ArbCom should take the case if they can address those allegations in a manner that most neutral editors will agree is satisfactory. If this involves seeking assistance from the WMF, assistance should be sought from the WMF. I do not, in general, trust the WMF, but this is a case where the integrity of both the WMF and the English Wikipedia have been attacked, and there is a real common enemy. On the other hand, if the ArbCom finds that the G&K paper should be addressed primarily by the WMF, and that the ArbCom should provide assistance to the WMF, then assistance should be offered to the WMF.

It will be worse if ArbCom accepts this case and handles it poorly than if ArbCom declines this case. Is ArbCom able to do it well?

This is a case with a larger scope than most previous ArbCom cases, and the first step taken by ArbCom should be defining the procedures to be used, which may need to precede the evidence phase. The time for the evidence phase and for the analysis of evidence may need to be increased to ensure that the complex issues are properly addressed.

I concur with the recommendation of User:Timtrent that if the ArbCom thinks that it can conduct the quasi-judicial proceeding well, a business process audit should be requested (paid for by the WMF) to verify that the ArbCom has followed best practices.

The authors of the G&K paper state that they are using a novel method of research. The novel method of research consists simply of reading the Wikipedia articles and talk pages and their histories. They have written a long user space essay on content and conduct issues that is masquerading as a peer-reviewed academic paper. Or perhaps they have written an academic paper masquerading as a user space essay on content and conduct issues.

If ArbCom accepts this case, as they appear to be about to do, ArbCom, as the initiator of the case, should also begin by entering the G&K paper into evidence. It is biased, but no more biased than many of the cases presented by parties in a more conventional dispute.

"If the task be great or small, do it well, or not at all." Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that I had practically nothing to do with the topic of the Holocaust in Poland (a couple of small edits and revs in one article, I think). But I see a lot of familiar names, because a brief encounter with one of the defendants in this case ended very quickly for me with an indefinite t-ban on the entire subcontinent at all times. Well, I'm glad to see that it wasn't an accident, but part of the Great Game, but for the future, I ask that ordinary users be safe from such an experience. It seems to me that the issue is much broader than the topic of the Holocaust in Poland itself.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacinda01 has been indefinetly blocked in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#14 February 2023, and should be removed as a party per the message above the listed parties "Editors named in the article but not included are those who are indefinitely blocked/banned, who are deceased, or who are or were sitting Arbs."

Edit: I have nothing to do with this area, but just wanted to leave a quick note and say that Chapmansh should absolutely be added as a party. echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first experience in which I encountered others on Wikipedia was creating the article Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China (currently Uyghur genocide). The article was created as the result of a class project and was moved into mainspace shortly after the semester ended, having remained as an article since then. Due my involvement in this topic, there was a particular subreddit and set of twitter users that publicly tracked my edits, baselessly and falsely accused me of being an agent of Five Eyes/the U.S. government, a sockpuppet of Horse Eye's Back, and/or having some other disreputable affiliation. Many people there falsely alleged that I was part of some off-wiki conspiracy to harm China by adding reliably sourced, truthful content to the Uyghur topic area, and one involved Wikimedian even admitted on Meta to running an account used to harass HEB and me off-wiki. The allegations were deeply hurtful, though they offered me good insights into how conspiracy theories start.

For these reasons (among others), I am particularly sensitive to thinly evidenced accusations of conspiracy to intentionally distort certain topic areas on Wikipedia. There are plenty of wacky conspiracies that have been thrown at Wikipedia editors over the years about alleged affiliations (such as allegations by George Galloway et al. that Philip Cross was either a British state agent or a particular journalist—both of which Galloway later recanted). The allegation of off-wiki coordination contained within the journal article is somewhat different—it's that there is some sort of grand successor to the EEML—but the evidence offered in support of this claim is largely that editors with shared interest in a topic area are showing up to edit in that topic area. The evidence laid out for EEML2 existing is unconvincing, and alleging that editors are engaging in off-wiki conspiracy requires stronger evidence than shared interest in a topic area. Wikipedians, of all people, should know that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence; sadly, such evidence of conspiracy was not present in the journal article.

Separately, I am concerned about how this was brought to ArbCom. If I really wanted to, I could very easily go to my professor for the class that brought me to Wikipedia and ask them to perform a study on the editing behaviors of specific users' atrocity denial in the Uyghur topic area. I'm sure my professor would be more than happy to write an article on it. Given their credentials, it would be easy to get such a paper published in some peer-reviewed journal. It's also not terribly hard to obtain the off-wiki identities (such as twitter/reddit/discord accounts) of at least a few users in the area who could reasonably be described as engaging in atrocity denial. Posting this info on-wiki would be a clear WP:OUTING violation, but posting it off-wiki in an academic journal is less clearly so. Even so, if ArbCom saw this paper, would that be a good basis to start a case involving as parties only those people that my professor were to mention in the paper, or would you also want to take a look at the actions of me and my professor related to the creation of that article? I would sincerely hope the latter; chapmansh should be a party.

Both my gut and informed conscience tell me that "doxxing people off-wiki to evade concerns about WP:OUTING is wrong" and that "people should not be using off-wiki platforms to attempt to further on-wiki disputes in which they have become involved". Requests regarding misbehavior should be handled through ordinary processes on-wiki; only if there is substantial off-wiki evidence of misbehavior, or if the community believes that a conduct dispute cannot broadly be resolved by the community, should the arbitration committee get involved. If ArbCom decides to go along with a case involving only those named in the paper because they were named in the paper, we're creating a terrible precedent that is clearly prone to abuse. Given the sheer amount of intersection between academia and Wikipedia, we should very well expect that this is going to be a thing academics repeat going forward if they dispute coverage in one area. Areas where there are real, substantial differences in Academia (such as WP:PIA and many topics within WP:ARBEE) are going to be much more vulnerable to this sort of thing, but having borderline WP:INVOLVED editors handle conduct disputes by creating journal articles is not going to be good for dispute resolution. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The case should be accepted. Chapmansh should be a party. I say this although I am dismayed by all of this. And yet there is a real problem and we do need to try to address it, or what are we here for? I like to think that all the work I put into this project increases people's access to accurate information. The problem goes beyond the Holocaust in Poland, so I urge the committee to focus on systemic issues rather than who was wrong ten years ago. That way perhaps the larger issue can be addressed without taking in evidence about Uyghurs or Ugg boots or the war in Ukraine, or, I don't know, Hunter Biden's laptop. It is also chilling to realize that ten-year-old edits can be drawn into wiki-proceedings.

It may be worth seeking input from other Wikipedias, who probably know a thing or two about disinformation.

I would ask, by the way, while we are in this topic area, that we address the scope a little, since I have in the past been told that it applies to current Russian claims that Ukrainians are Nazis. I do not think that this was intended. Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to write a lengthy diatribe on why accepting this case would be an incredibly bad idea, but I see that ArbCom member SilkTork, with their latest replies, has articulated it far better than I could. Good work. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom does not settle content disputes; this is central to its role and to the entire structure of our dispute-resolution process. While obviously it is sometimes necessary to settle situations where someone is clearly intentionally misrepresenting a source, or misreading it so severely and consistently that WP:COMPETENCE is called into question, I am concerned that the impetus for this case may be to make ArbCom make sweeping claims about the subject area (one that is, in fact, highly controversial among scholars.) I would also point out that numerous peer-reviewed articles have described our coverage of the Holocaust as reasonably high-quality - or at least that its flaws and limitations are not the result of systematic misconduct. For example, ^[1] - a much more nuanced (and I think accurate) take on our coverage, which certainly does not entirely absolve us of biases, but which shows a deeper understanding of the editing process; or ^[2][3], which certainly talk about biases and inaccuracies but which show a lot more understanding about how they come about rather than ascribing them all to a shadowy cabal. I know it's a bit odd to cite sources in an ArbCom request, but my point is that we are basically suggesting doing this entire (extremely heavy and time-consuming) process based on a single primary source whose conclusions are starkly out of line with comparable sources, which is something that would normally barely suffice to put a single sentence in an article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Grabowski paper fits squarely within the scholarly consensus when it claims that Poland has a problem of mythologized nationalistic historiography of the Holocaust. Aquillion's papers (apologies for singling you out) come from "media studies" peeps, not historians; one of the three isn't published, and another is by a student. I'm not aware of historians reviewing Wikipedia's coverage of the Holocaust except the paper that brought us here.

However, ArbCom can't and shouldn't rule on content issues. There's a big difference between distortion and intentional distortion. Conduct issues are easier to judge, and are within ArbCom's remit. I have no opinion on Grabowski's specific claims of misconduct against any editors.

I love Chess's idea of bringing in the Holocaust Memorial Museum to provide an independent opinion. And I think once all conduct issues are examined by ArbCom, the WMF should separately request feedback from multiple historians from universities and Holocaust museums, to examine whether our coverage of the Holocaust is distorted. If true, that would be a durable stain on Wikipedia's reliability and public image. But it's not something any of us, not even ArbCom, can judge. DFlhb (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in one of the many discussions on this topic, the long history of the controversy surrounding this topic (the Icewhiz case, etc.) is poorly known to me, as I was not active on en.wiki at the time. I also believe that Grabowski and Klein's article cannot be completely ignored, as he is an undoubted expert on the subject of Holocaust history, and besides, many of their comments are accurate. Nevertheless, the tone of the article is far from balanced, and undoubtedly Grabowski and Klein are clearly aiming not so much to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles as to undermine the editing rights of specific editors.

The second issue is what Grabowski and Klein interpret as "nationalist propaganda" can often be explained as a result of procedures adopted on Wikipedia and the nature of the project itself. First of all, Wikipedia is created by amateurs, that aren't familiar with tonnes of literature written by experts, project also prefers easily accessible sources in English. And meanwhile, as can be seen by the works G&K cite, the most important works on the Holocaust in Poland have been published in Polish in the last few years. Secondly, if the source is not considered by the community to be unquestionably unreliable then it is virtually impossible to remove the content that cites it. All of this creates an environment favorable for outdated theories and long-debunked facts to still be found in articles. Very few people have the tools, opportunities and time to confront them with today's state of knowledge.

Another issue is that the allegations made by G&K are not always accurate, sometimes even wrong, quite often advocating one of several equally possible interpretations of an event. On the Rescue of Jews by Poles... discussion page, I analyzed them one by one. As you can see, this spawned a fruitful conversation that helped reach a consensus on several issues, and the article undoubtedly became better because of it. If one reads the G&K article calmly, turns a blind eye to the emotive tone and the accusations made, the list of actual errors and distortions in the articles is not that long at all (moreover, some of them have already been removed) and can be resolved by working on the articles and discussing the content.Marcelus (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As several of you have noted, this case will take some time to complete. By the time it ends, media attention may well have moved on.

Have you thought of issuing a press release now to mark the start of your case, complete with a description of the process and, above all, some comments on the quality of the evidence presented in the essay?

As User:SilkTork and others on this page have noted, that quality is rather uneven. In my opinion, this is something the public should be made aware of now, rather than in six months' time. Andreas JN466 02:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, I am reminded of those BLP cases where the media prominently report some accusation that finds its way into our articles, and then you never hear about the case again, leaving the accusation in the BLP forever – with all the readers wondering whether the case is still active, whether the subject was guilty, etc.

I'm not saying there is no criticism in this essay worth taking seriously. But given how much in it is plain wrong – trivially wrong – just from looking at some of the edit histories and the article stats, I would have thought some statement on behalf of the community would be appropriate. --Andreas JN466 17:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comment should not be interpreted as taking any stance on the historical viewpoints involved; on that I am a non-expert and non-participant. However, as a publishing academic in other fields I am shocked that this dubious article should be published, even in a mid-tier-level non-Web of Science journal. The author refers to Wiki lexicon with unnecessary scare quotation marks, and to editors with nicknames even where he knows the names and qualifications of the individuals involved, with the apparent passive-aggressive aim of discrediting or frivolizing the site and editors: as an example, Piotrus has an earned doctorate and publications in his respective discipline, and deserves to have his position represented with both accuracy and scholarly civility, even if there is firm disagreement. The author refuses to differentiate with any nuance between Wiki contributors who mostly accord with him, others who take a differing historical reading apolitically, and possible bad-faith actors; all are lumped together as wild-eyed pro-Polish government far-right anti-semitic "distortionists." Again, not my circus or monkeys; but were it me, I would be consulting legal counsel, or contacting the journal about a retraction or rebuttal; or failing this, lodging the case with Scopus' accreditation management.

I don't think this has much bearing on the overall case request, but a brief note that, as part of SPI clerk duties, I have left Keneckert a friendly note about WP:MEAT, partly because of the above post. To be clear, this is a note left without finding of bad faith, and explicitly without finding of any wrongdoing—even unintentionally—on Piotrus' part. The AGF explanation looks to me like someone learned their friend/colleague was being criticized on Wikipedia and came to put in a good word without understanding the policies at play. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here to say Chapmansh should preliminarily be added as a party. If arbcom comes up with standards on who should be a party, whittles down the list and Chapmansh is one of those who doesn't make it so be it. But it seems odd to add so many editors but miss out on Chapmansh who wrote the paper that you've used to make the list. I'm an editor who was and remains unconvinced Chapmansh should be sanctioned for anything. Which is an added reason, while I do not believe Chapmansh should be sanctioned I don't think the community has significant experience on how to handle claimed outing which occurs exclusively off-site in part because it's not something we normally handle. For privacy reason it's something only arbcom can generally handle and privately. Indeed I found it very odd we were discussing it on AN effectively amplifying and broadcasting the claimed outing to discuss sanctioning over outing. Especially as anyone who talked on-wiki about it had to take great care not to out on wiki limiting what editors could say. (One of the many reasons I have not and probably will never read the paper.) The fact some of the people affected seemed fine with it reduced my concerns but was fairly sure they weren't all there. Now I find from this case there are way more than I expected named although I don't know how many have outing concerns. I don't think it being a high profile peer-reviewed paper makes a difference. The only thing which does is every single person affected agrees to allow an on-wiki discussion with no pressure to do so. Appreciate though that outing aside, the paper may raise other issues best considered on-wiki so we can't avoid discussing it completely. Nil Einne (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that if the committee feels it's better to handle the outing issue as a separate private case, I do think they should at least mention this here to avoid perceptions it's being ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention while not as significant, I also think the ?inconsistent applied^{[note 1]} decision to exclude current or former sitting arbitrators also seems weird. Again, I think they should be added and any later standards on who to keep can be applied when they come. Current arbitrators can decide if they need to recuse based on these factors. Nil Einne (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention while not as significant, I also think the ?inconsistently applied^{[note 2]} decision to exclude current or former sitting arbitrators also seems weird. Again, I think they should be added and any later standards on who to keep can be applied when they come. Current arbitrators can decide if they need to recuse based on these factors. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content dispute concerns material that is inaccurate because of a Polish nationalist bias. It has come to light because of a scholarly work, which has in turn been accused of inaccuracy and bias. This is a snowglobe set piece of a problem endemic on Wikipedia: that NPOV is a dead letter. The policy says Wikipedia describes both sides of disputes without engaging in them. The reality is that true proportional balance on controversial articles is an unstable equilibrium. Once there's blood in the water for a minority view, it's a short trip to brand, discredit, ban. Sennalen (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy the Committee is considering adding Chapmansh in a way that mitigates concerns about a chilling effect on academia and journalism criticising Wikipedia. We should invite people willing to hold us to account. However, I'm not sure we should say a priori that WP:OUTING wasn't violated. By digging up a 15-year old diff, the spirit of that policy was breached, and some of the information in the paper (employment) was never mentioned onwiki. This topic area has seen severe harassment, and it is my belief that this instance of outing in spirit puts the safety of editors at risk, and may warrant an admonishment or warning. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article violates the OUTING policy should be established during the case, not by motion before the case is even opened. This is an important and sensitive point that should be given proper consideration. If evidence is presented during the case that OUTING was breached (at least in spirit, as Femke argues), the Committee should act on that, and it will be less embarrassing for the committee if they do not have to overturn their own ill-considered motion. —Kusma (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am formally an uninvolved editor in this topic area, as I have started editing it after the G&K paper was published. I think that G&K are largely right as far as articles' content is concerned: many articles present a nationalist bias in line with the "historical policy" [31] promoted by the Polish government. They downplay the extent and significance of Polish antisemitism and contain dubious unsourced or poorly sourced statements (e.g. [32] [33] [34]), misrepresentations of sources (e.g. [35] [36] [37]) and selective/manipulative quotations (e.g. [38] [39] [40]). Yes, we know that historical memory is a battleground, historians are no angels, everyone has their own POV, etc., but IMHO the current conditions of Holocaust in Poland are far beyond reasonable disagreement between reputable experts. This situation is not justifiable and we should be grateful to G&K for ringing the alarm bell.

That G&K are right with regard to the articles' content ("Distortion of the History of the Holocaust") does not imply that they are right also with regard to user behaviour ("Deliberate Distortion"). But in this respect we shouldn't be too self-indulgent. Deliberate or not, this distortion has developed before everyone's eyes, fuelling countless disputes and being handled by admins numerous times. As many users have already argued, it may be that the distinction between content and behaviour is inadequate to handle protracted conflicts between groups of editors. Perhaps in these situations it is necessary for someone to take the trouble to check the sources, verify the content and come to an assessment on the merits. Perhaps ArbCom should be able to rely on third-party evaluations in cases where content has to be closely scrutinised and/or specific technical expertise is required.

I would like to make a final point. To assess behaviour properly it is necessary to sink deep into article histories and talk page discussions, which I have not yet done. However, what I read in G&K's paper closely resembles my own experiences in the area of Russo-Ukrainian war. Paul Siebert also warned of this danger, which I believe is already current and explosive; Animal lover 666 perfectly described the dynamic in which I believe I was involved. In the Holocaust in Poland topic area I see the same users (at least four of them) and the same practices that led to my recent topic ban from the Russo-Ukrainian war (from which I was granted an exemption to edit at WP:ARC by Callanecc). This is another reason why I think ArbCom should accept the case: something went wrong in the process of writing these articles and we need to understand what it is, because the pattern of problematic behaviour and the network of collaborations that led to systematic bias in Holocaust in Poland might be exported and applied elsewhere, leading to more tendentious editing and low-quality coverage of politically sensitive subjects. Since this thing is not going to go away by itself, I think that informed and decisive administrative action is needed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• re:Ealdgyth I think this is fair. In response, I'd ask you to consider what might make sense to wait until a case is actually opened - where there is likely to be a statement of scope for instance to help you know what to focus on - and what should be written about here at the case request stage. With that said what kind of extension of the word count do you need now? As for what we're looking for I have, speaking only for myself, attempted to give some sense of that but other arbs will have different opinions. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have informed Xx236 that despite their topic ban, they are welcome participate in this case if they wish (I believe that this falls under case 2, "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution"). GeneralNotability (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The extended-confirmed restriction described at WP:APL50030 does apply to this case request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chess: Regarding non-extended-confirmed users whose participation may be desirable despite the restriction: The arbitrators can exempt all parties from the restriction and add parties to the case, for example. There are multiple possible solutions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Red-tailed hawk is granted a word limit extension to 750 words. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Normally I post an initial impression and (except for obvious declines) want to hear from the community before posting an official vote. This is not normal and so I am ready to accept. In fact one of the reasons I'm ready to accept now is because I think the decision to not accept last year has proven to be ArbCom's biggest mistake since FRAM. Since then we have had multiple private requests to do something in this topic area (TA) and now we have a peer reviewed article saying that there is a large issue with editor conduct and the resulting content in this TA. I have some problems with the article and I think Elmidae's comment at AN is the best summary of it I've seen It's essentially a really long talk page rant with outing, published as a peer-reviewed research article in a reputable journal. The content ultimately does not meet the OUTING threshold for me because outing is a behavioral policy that does not trump content policy and guidelines. Though I admit this article comes closer than most situations where I invoke the behavior policy point to actually being a conduct issue. But while close it remains that this article was written in the authors' roles as academics and I do not think Wikipedia should be sanctioning an academic for writing in a reputable journal on a topic of their study.
  So we're left with a talk page rant that has been peer-reviewed in a reputable journal alleging major conduct issues. As a Wikipedian I feel an obligation to follow what reliable sources say rather than what I wish them to say and given the numerous ways they allege our administrative processes have failed I think ArbCom has to step in and step-in in this rather unusual manner. As an Arbitrator, I think their claims need to be carefully examined, as I am not sure all of them will hold up to scrutiny, and I acknowledge, beyond their criticism of Icewhiz, that there are issues on the "other side" which also need examination. I would be remiss if I didn't note my continued feeling that Icewhiz has caused Wikipedians the most harm of any non-govenrment actor in the last 5 years. But I also wonder if the specter of Icewhiz hasn't obfuscated misconduct by a number of parties, including those who agree with Icewhiz on much of the content.
  All of this, and more, is why it is clear to me that ArbCom has failed the community in its obligation to solve this serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve and so an examination, on a fairly large scale, of editor conduct is now needed. Because this was an unusual situation I supported using an objective standard in noting potential parties, but it is my feeling that not all of these people need the same level of examination of their conduct. I am, for instance, starting from the bias that the administrators named who were acting in their role as administrators have not violated any policies or guidelines and should be thanked rather than made an involuntary party to the case. If this is not correct I would appreciate evidence offered. And if there are people not listed above who should be made a party I would appreciate that evidence as well. To those that got all the way here, thank you for reasing this rather long accept comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GizzyCatBella: truthfully I'd have put Jacinda01 in the "why bother making them a party" category before but your suggestion about them being IW makes me more inclined to want to keep them. That said they haven't edited since 2021 and so the odds of them turning up here feel small. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robby.is.on: I had already seen the comment before it was pointed out here and I was trying to figure out how to say something productive to you about it. Having read your comments here, I'm wondering if there would be a way to change your emotional outburst (as you put it) so it's still emotional without being an outburst so that I (and potentially other arbs/admins) don't need to figure out which side of the border the borderline comment falls on? Put another way, can you find a version that expresses the strength of your opinions without veering into PA territory? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotr the idea of supporting victims by declaring them innocent is interesting. My one concern on first thought is that no one deserves the kind of harassment certain LTAs dish out including victims who may have violated policies and guidelines themselves. But it really is an interesting idea and so I want to keep thinking about it. Thanks for the thought. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chess: I anticipate the committee discussing, if this case is accepted, the parties including potentially adding Chapmansh. If you have concerns about current classes I'd encourage you to use the Education Noticeboard as that is likely to get the appropriate eyes on it and perhaps have faster/better resolution than what ArbCom can offer. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buffs: editors banned by the Wikimedia Foundation are excluded from any and all particiaption in anything around Wikipedia. It is not unseemly to speak ill of someone whose harassment has been proven to the satiisfaction of English Wikipedia, the global community, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It is instead a statement of fact in the same way that we note people who've been convicted of terrible crimes in our articles about them. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For people who are saying that we need to add Chapmansh as a party, what Wikipedia Policies and/or Guidelines have they potentially violated and what is the evidence (diff) to support that? From what I'm reading here the issues are: improper association with Icewhiz, doxxing, and poor scholarship. But none of those have happened on wiki and all of them are beyond the jurisidiction of the committee. If the idea is simply that they be allowed to be heard on these matters, all English Wikipedia editors are given the opportunity to be heard. If Chapmansh would like the benefits of being a party (which formally include more words and diffs and informally a bit more tolerance of borderline behavior during a case) and were to request that then sure we should add them. But in general outside of requests to be a party, I believe in only adding a party where there is some expectation that evidence of misconduct can be shown, which is why the committee has sometimes chosen not to have the filer of a case as parties in the last couple of years and why I am skeptical that Chapmansh should be added here. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tryptofish it is a fact that they are conducting a class. I have seen no allegations, let alone allegations supported by evidence (diff), that they are violationg policies or guidelines with the class that they are conducting. My expectation, which I noted in my acceptance, is that we will have fewer parties when opening this case than we have listed here today. If we're going to add a party - which isn't inconceivable to me - I want it to be because their conduct with-in the jurisdiction of the committee needs exploring. So my question here is a sincere one for those advocating the additional person be added because, as I noted already, it's not inconceivable to me that we subtract and add parties if a case is opened. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of editors have asked, in one form or another, if the same standard I'm suggesting for Chapmansh be applied to other editors. And my answer is yes, I only will support parties, if a case is opened, who I think there is some expectation that evidence of misconduct can be shown. This is why I have, from my original comment here, stated Because this was an unusual situation I supported using an objective standard in noting potential parties, but it is my feeling that not all of these people need the same level of examination of their conduct. This is why I have advocated in several cases during my tenure that not all parties at the case request including the filer of the case on at least 2 occasions (I believe) be included as a party when the case opens. This standard of consideration isn't one that I've just made up for this case. Of course I am only one arb and so my preferences don't always happen. So now that we (hopefully) have this implicit suggestion of uneven treatment out of the way I would like to reiterate my question of for people who are saying that we need to add Chapmansh as a party, what Wikipedia Policies and/or Guidelines have they potentially violated and what is the evidence (diff) to support that? Barkeep49 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will personally be considering not just the evidence offered in the paper and this case request when looking to determine parties but also the 2021/22 case request. I approach these matters in two stages: is there enough to suggest someone is party to the dispute (a real but somewhat low standard) and if yes is there evidence of misconduct (a real and more stringent standard). We are at stage one and I don't know what the evidence in this case will ultimately end up showing for people who I think should be parties. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So Levivich, I'm not sure you need to say anything new because there might not be anything new to respond to that you haven't already. But at least for me the threshold for including you as a party to this case has been met and I want to say so now so that if the rest of the committee agrees you aren't taken by surprise. Since you mention it, I think the Kurds case is actually instructive in that you were a party to the dispute in a way that a detailed examination of your conduct was appropriate. In the end there was no inappropriate conduct by you so nothing came of it. Crucially, though, and somewhat contrary to the narrative you present above, it wasn't incorrect from my point of view to have included you as a party given the evidence at play. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Levivich I'd refer you to case request where I note at least one thing in a motion which I offered as I found the evidence clear and compelling even in the absence of a full case. However there were other things mentioned at that time which are there for you to review. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @GRuban: I don't think there is any mistake here. Instead it's a demonstration of how having a large committee with diverse perspectives plays out. Different arbs have different standards and act according. So you're seeing that Eek uses one standard and I use another. Neither is right or wrong, it's just different ways of applying our judgement. We might reach the same conclusion or a different one but will have each given transparency to the community about our thinking. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Volunteer Marek: and others who've written that the committee needs to be clear about scope, let me say that I agree with you (and this is why I worked to get scope added to the box that appears at the top of all case pages), that the committee has been actively working on those kinds of questions which is why this case hasn't yet been opened (the result of one of those discussions is the Champmansh motion below), and no matter how hard we try people are always going to feel we should have been clearer about scope because it's only after the evidence has been submitted that the true scope of disruption can be determined so there will almost always end up being evidence submitted that, in the end, feels out of scope. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Per my opposition to the previous motion to decline and echoing Barkeep's statement above, our inaction has led to now a second instance of public censure and the continued potential for off-wiki harassment of our community members. Unacceptable then, and unacceptable now.
  I believe a significant portion of blame rests on the shoulders of the Arbitration Committee for failing to adequately attend to the needs of the community across the multiple times our attention was requested, and it is this plain error which justifies our unusual resumption of proceeding on our own motion. Icewhiz has been a scourge these last five years, and our inability to adequately handle his disruption has led to the breakdown of our editorial community, general decorum, and article quality. These effects are diffuse, leading to fatigue of our volunteers, and a battleground where only those willing to put up with the potential for harassment---from many "sides"---can edit. This is not how a high-quality encyclopedia is written. We were asked in 2019 to review conduct in this area, but the Committee was small and attention diverted. The number of arbitrators participating in the 2019 case (6!) would not even constitute a majority of this body. In fact, more arbitrators were in the minority to accept the 2021 request than participated in the 2019 case. We did not give our full attention in 2019, and when that error led to continued problems, we were asked in 2021 to revisit the issue. We narrowly declined, asking the community to use our existing procedures contrary to the statements of our community members who explained why these procedures have failed them so far. Our failure to respond has led to editors feeling more comfortable speaking about these issues to external academic than to the Committee tasked with resolving them, and as a result, we once again have a public article impugning our encyclopedia, administrative procedures, and editors. We cannot sit by, once again, and hope that the editors we sent away last time take time away from their other tasks while they check a procedural box for us. The community already gave us the right to revisit previous proceedings; let's not waste more of their time with the procedural game of having them ask us to remedy our own contribution to the problem.
  This will not be an easy issue to resolve, but the Committee was not convened to solve easy issues. We have the opportunity to give this topic the diligence and care necessary to properly resolve it. We have the attention of academics and scholars who believe our content is important. We have editors on-record laying out where our procedures have failed and with ideas on how to improve them. We have a large and active committee with few parallel obligations and the capacity to share the workload. We can leverage these resources now or wait for this decade-long problem to get still worse. The committee waited last time, and I hope we do not make the same mistake again. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam: Speaking for myself regarding your questions:

  • Maybe the very large potential parties list is intended to get a lot of opinions on whether to actually have a case or not? Editors mentioned generally had some level of participation in the topic area and may have statements or evidence of interest. It also means they get notified immediately, so this means they don't find out from someone else that they're included in this article or that we're considering it. Parties can be added or removed at the Committee's discretion, so starting with a more objective metric and removing as necessary is exactly to avoid the issue of a party list being a "you've done something wrong and sanctions are coming" list.
  • Are potential parties expected to comment here, at this stage, even if there is no reason to believe they did anything wrong? Parties are invited to make a statement, but participation is voluntary. Usually, being a "party" pretty strongly implies you'd better comment at the case request or you'll regret it later... is that true here? Personally, I don't think there should be that reading. In fact, if someone feels they don't have much to contribute, a statement of "I only commented once and have nothing to really add, can I be removed" is a valid response and a request that I would take seriously.
  • Not sure what the rationale is for omitting past or current Arbs from the potential parties list, but on the surface it sure seems like a bad look....is the problem that almost all the current Arbs are mentioned? The Committee as an institution was criticized generally, and while a few quotes were pulled from motion votes, the focus was on the committee. And in any case, why would former Arbs not have to deal with this, while mere mortals have to? We already have their private correspondence related to these cases in our archives, and unless they've been active in this topic area (if my memory serves me, the one or two not currently on the committee haven't been) then they wouldn't even have access to the evidence we would be seeking.
  • This is outsourcing the selection of potential parties to non-Wikipedians. That just seems wrong. Will you do the same the next time Wikipediocracy has a blog post? Firstly, I think there's an obvious difference between an article written by academics published in a peer-reviewed journal on the topic and a blog post. Secondly, we selected that as the metric after considering other possibilities, so it's not like there's some automatic pipeline devoid of discretion. I would argue that being clear about where and how parties were selected is better than publishing substantially the same list and pretending we just made it up ourselves.
  • Are we sure it was "peer reviewed" in the normal sense of the term? My understanding is that it is peer-reviewed, the submission instructions mentions only one kind of submission which goes through double-blind peer-review. Journals with multiple sections list the editorial policies separately, for example Language lists each section with separate editorial policies. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved from Ealdgyth's section Speaking for myself, statements addressing the following would be most helpful (1) what if any conduct issues still exist which have not been resolved by previous cases or administrative action? (2) how effective are existing procedures in this area, and if you believe they are ineffective, what is the apparent cause of the ineffectiveness? (3) would arbitration be effective in this instance or have existing dispute resolution processes been sufficient? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to set some expectations here, quoting directly from a clerk comment Guerillero made in a past case request: I would like to preemptively warn everyone above (and those who have yet to comment) that I am going to take a dim view to incivility, well poisoning, gratuitous mud slinging, and general nastiness. I'm well aware that this is a fraught topic area, but that just means we all need to be on our best behavior. Clerks and arbs have the power to delete or refactor problematic comments (it's in the editnotice), and we will be making use of this if needed. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some initial thoughts from me:

  • The article that we're all talking about has a POV. It might be the "right" POV, it might not, but it is a POV, and it's part of our responsibility as Wikipedians to be able to critically evaluate a source and recognize that.
  • Following up on the question of the "right" POV: the members of the Arbitration Committee, and most of the community, are not historigraphers of the Holocaust in Poland, and I for one do not speak Polish. We aren't going to be able to tell you which side is "right" here, and since this appears to be an area of significant ongoing research I expect that the "truth" will continue to change as more facts are unearthed.
  • I do not care one bit for people suggesting the article was heavily influenced (or worse, ghostwritten) by Icewhiz. I certainly believe the authors downplayed the reasons for Icewhiz's ban, but I would attribute that to shared POV rather than direct influence.
  • Editors who are familiar with academic research in a field will always have an advantage in source discussions over those who do not, and that's probably never going to change.

  GeneralNotability (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to disagree with my colleagues on the topic of Chapmansh - I believe they should be added as a party. I do not think that "named as party" should imply "we plan to sanction you," rather it should just mean that someone is a significant player in the dispute (and I believe that if we're going to examine their paper's claims, I think that implies that they are a major player). GeneralNotability (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Couple other thoughts:

  • I like Chess's suggestion of bringing in the Holocaust Memorial Museum.
  • I like Tryptofish's suggested scope(s).
  • I like HJ Mitchell's framing of inquisitorial proceedings
  • I do not intend to say whether any particular academic viewpoint is "right". My concerns are primarily about where Wikipedia processes are breaking down (and, as usual for me, why existing tools like ARBEE are not sufficient)

  We're currently heading toward an accept, but folks here should expect some time as we internally hash out exactly what form this case will take. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Zero0000, I'm not suggesting they do know anything about Wikipedia processes, and I'm not suggesting that they decide anything. I simply think that their input as neutral outsiders would provide helpful background information to us. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I anticipate accepting, but am waiting for the community to catch up. I am currently thinking about how best to structure the case. I expect a significant amount of bytes will be spent on the context of the statements the paper makes, but I am not sure the typical case structure will accommodate that smartly. Perhaps an atypical subpage akin to a workshop where editors can discuss the specific statements made on a given page and/or the other edits that would give context to each of the footnotes, maybe with relaxed word requirements.

  For evidence not directly pertaining to the specific words and footnotes in the paper, I think the usual structure and location would be reasonable.

  We are also entertaining the best scope. While the paper has focused on the Holocaust in Poland, many of the parties are also active in the rest of the topic area defined in the case request (Eastern Europe). Do the issues of conduct not-specific to the topic matter of the Holocaust in Poland presented by the paper extend there also? Izno (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich, to be blunt: You are likely to have evidence submitted against you as part of this case, even ignoring your presence in the article at hand. I think you will want to be a party accordingly. While I do not speak for the full committee, I think they will agree that you will be one.

  To answer a specific point about parties (Hammersoft, Tryptofish, et al), Barkeep argues based on personal preference that the party list should be a certain set of people - those most likely to have issues with their conduct brought forth. (Without ascribing words to him specifically, it is usually about saving time and energy for the people involved in the case, including the arbitrators, from dealing with evidence that doesn't ultimately matter to the core issues.) Whereas Eek attempts to explain that being included as a party does not require that expectation, and has historically been about whether the editor knew about the core issues. These two views are allowed to be contradictory. I happen to agree with Eek's interpretation and basic expectation of that role. I also believe that Barkeep's position on the point is reasonable in many cases, and it is certainly one that I will use even in this case to help me decide who should be a party. However, I do not think it necessarily a good default position in this case, and for me, starting a case like this, it made sense to be broader rather than narrower an initial list of parties, not least for the benefits of mandatory notification to people we had reasonable belief would know something about the core issues.

  (I would not be opposed to these two mostly-reasonable views of the role being described in the procedures or perhaps the guide to arbitration.)

  It is regardless a decision of the committee taking the case who are to be named parties, and we have already begun giving the question due consideration as part of the case's setup. If you believe there should be other parties, or that specific parties should be removed, you are free to provide those, as some of you already have, particularly the co-author of the paper. Izno (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am inclined to accept, but I am waiting to read statements. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept I will post a detailed rational this evening --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Poland has been a problem area on Wikipedia since before Piotrus in 2007. Over the past 16 years the community, AE admins, and the arbitration committee have all failed to control the disruption within the topic area. While I don't have incredibly high hopes that we will do any better than past committees, that doesn't excuse passing the buck. The 2021 committee did it and the results have been a disaster. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jayen466: I was on the committee for the last time we talked to the press in a formal capacity, Gamergate, and that experience made it clear that it isn't worth the time and effort -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Before I vote I want to see statements from listed parties who have not yet commented. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am planning on voting to accept this pending some further figuring-out-of-things-behind-the-scenes. KrakatoaKatie summed up my feelings on this issue when she voted to ban Jytdog, where she said "I do not want to find out what the next more outrageous thing is, so with regret, this is where I come down." I am shocked that Eostrix, an Icewhiz sock that Arbcom had to block by motion to prevent from passing a request for adminship, has not been mentioned by anyone. That socking damaged RfA's reputation and the community's confidence in candidates, and cast a shadow over 2022 RfAs. Really, it damaged the community at large. Icewhiz was likely planning on using the Eostrix admin account to continue with battles with other editors in this topic area-- that whole episode is part of this. I do not want another Eostrix situation. The behind the scenes is not just Icewhiz doxing and harassment. I do not want to see that escalate. I do not want another monstrous case request like the Warsaw Concentration Camp one. I do not another monster ANI/AN thread that no one aside from involved parties touches that stays open for a month. I do not want to see another stalled out AE. I do not want to see another academic journal article. Frankly, this has reached the point where either T&S or some sort of UCoC enforcement system is going to step in-- and I am convinced they will do something that no one likes. I do not want another issue on the level of Framban. No one wants that. I am not going to wait to see what happens next-- No One wants to see what happens next. I legitimately believe a case is the least painful option here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept because a case is the best of several bad choices and per my above comment, specifically the behind-the-scenes issues in 2022. I'm not sure how important it is to other Arbs in accepting the case but it's one of the deciding factors for me. To @Black Kite and any others I have particular appreciation for who do not understand the thought process behind these votes-- honestly I think anyone in my position, knowing what I know, would vote to accept. The behind-the-scenes stuff really does flip the narrative towards accepting a case in order to prevent further harassment and harm to the community at large and I seriously cannot see anyone here saying otherwise if they saw what I saw. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm glad my comment has gotten some attention. Let me elaborate-- there is an art to "speculation". A functionary cannot tell you about something because they signed an NDA among other reasons, so they have to choose their words carefully when discussing something that isn't public. You won't be able to find out what they're talking about, but that's ok-- you can still get meaning out of what they say without knowing what is exactly being referred to.

  1. Cross reference what they're saying with what they've previously said. In this case, my two statements at this case.

  2. Critically read a sentence at a time, and ask questions for each sentence-- word choice is deliberate, ask "why would they say this"?

  3. Think about what is not being said.

  Apply that to my acceptance statement:

  - "...a case is the best of several bad choices..." what are those bad choices, in a "what can happen on Wikipedia" sense?

  - "...behind-the-scenes issues in 2022..." in his previous statement, Moneytrees makes a distinction between the behind-the-scenes and the Warsaw case request, and also says "The behind the scenes is not just Icewhiz doxing and harassment" -- so they probably aren't the same thing.

  - "...in order to prevent further harassment and harm to the community at large..." He uses the wording "Really, it damaged the community at large" when talking about the Eostrix RfA in his previous statement, referring to how it caused issues outside of the topic area. So at large implies he thinks there is something that will be an issue outside of the topic area.

  From what I see, this is forth time we are "at the brink" with issues in the topic area since the 2019 Arbcase. I think about it like this: if the 2019 Arbcom knew about the Framban and what the ensuring consequences and fallout would be, if they had a chance to take a case to potentially prevent it, would they? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just noting this because I've seen the issue of the links in the article being "broken": the diffs are correctly formatted but it seems like the Taylor and Francis site is breaking them, it looks like because of some character rendering issue. Here's a random citation that shows what I'm talking about: reference 194, “Wikipedia: Biographies of Living Persons,” Wikipedia, revision from 14:04, July 19, 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&oldid=1099200134." If you highlight that link and paste it into your search bar, it'll take you to the corresponding edit. However, if you click on the link as cited in the article, you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons%26oldid=1099200134 , which is a broken link. The difference between the two is that the "&" (ampersand) in "&oldid" is replaced with "%26", which breaks the link. This happens to all Wikipedia links in the article. I'm assuming this is because the Taylor and Francis has difficulty rendering the ampersand and isn't some mistake/ignorance on the author's part. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept I believe our failure to open the Warsaw Concentration Camp request was a major mistake. Well, now we've received scholarly rebuke for our actions, and it is apparent that the entire Holocaust in Poland topic area is broken. I agree that the paper is problematic. But we cannot simply ignore it. The paper has identified a problem. That does not mean we accept its conclusions. The point of this case will be to determine what the actual scope of the problem is, and how to fix it. I wish we had a better vessel than this paper to open this case, but that sort of thinking burned us on the Warsaw request: we wanted the "perfect" request, and thus ignored the imperfect, but pressing, issue that was before us. ArbCom must fix its mistake.
  The Holocaust in Poland is a sensitive and important topic area. But it has fallen by the wayside in the wake of Icewhiz's banning. Icewhiz is one of our worst harassers of all time, and I'm very glad he's been blocked. I fear however that some folks have interpreted our ban of Icewhiz as 1) an implicit rebuke of his content position, and 2) an indication that the conduct issues in the topic area had been solved. Re: 1) That is not true. We were not endorsing a content position by banning him, and the goal here is not to decide which side is right. ArbCom is not, and should not, be in the business of refereeing how many proponents from each "side" of the issue there are. That is false balance, gets into issues of !VOTE, and assumes all editors are unrepentant POV pushers. 2) I think our fear of Icewhiz has clouded our judgement. We must be mindful of his socks, and his attempts to influence us. But we cannot let our fear of Icewhiz stop us from actually doing the hard work of building the encyclopedia. Otherwise, Icewhiz has already won.
  Overall, our goal here must be to disentangle ourselves from old paradigms and rehabilitate the topic area. As much as there is disagreement on how to handle the HiP topic area, I'm seeing general agreement that the topic area is broken. A lot of editors are expressing that they want nothing to do with HiP, which is the clearest sign that the topic is toxic. When all other processes have failed, it is ArbCom's role to step in and provide a sort of environmental remediation.
  I understand this is a monster case to take on, but I see it as necessary to do justice. The large party list here is to help us identify the scope of the problem. I understand the sinking feeling that Floquenbeam mentions. I realize it is unpleasant to be named as a party, but I want to stress that being named as a party is not a sign of wrongdoing. It is a sign of knowledge about the issue. Certainly, parties can be sanctioned, and I understand that is frightening. I want to thank folks for their patience and understanding, and I imagine we'll be doing some party tweaking based on y'alls feedback. Ultimately, the HiP topic area remains broken, and this is our chance to fix it before things get out of hand. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GRuban: The Committee is not a monolith, nor should it be. Barkeep and I are coming at this from slightly different angles, and that is a good thing; I think Izno's thoughts capture that idea well. Our reasoning may be different, but the outcome is the same: we're both for accepting this case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a clarification, I don't think Chapmansh should be a party. They have less than 500 edits, less than 50 mainspace edits, and are mostly just doing WikiEd stuff. They haven't actually edited in the topic area, so I don't see how they have first hand knowledge of the dispute; they are a secondary source so to speak. Including them as a party because they researched the topic is a bad precedent. It would discourage authors from writing about Wikipedia if they were to be possibly drawn into ArbCases just for writing about Wikipedia. Nor do I see the benefit of including them as a party. They've said their thoughts, in a peer reviewed paper. I'm not looking to elevate their voice further, and I don't think we have the authority to sanction them for having not edited in the topic area. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a Decline for reasons I've already given internally to the Committee. I will explain my reasons more fully later today when I have more time, though are essentially that I feel that the nature of this problem is one that is best resolved bottom up rather than top down, and that work has already started on examining and improving the articles which a case would serve to distract, and that if and when conduct problems occur in resolving any issues in the articles the community can then ask the Committee to step in to assist. I feel that the Committee should stand ready to assist the community in this matter, but not to get involved too soon as that is taking initiative, responsibility, ownership, motivation, etc, away from the community. It can be dispiriting when an authority organisation declines to give assistance when asked, but it is equally dispiriting when an authority organisation takes away the right to conduct one's own affairs too soon. It can be difficult to get the balance right, and the Committee have been criticised for sometimes declining to get involved, so it is understandable why some in the Committee are proposing this. But I feel it would be better to wait until asked. And that such a request would be more relevant than this one which is based on older rather than recent incidents. I'd prefer we look into dealing with today's ongoing concerns rather than raking over yesterday's alleged Committee failings. SilkTork (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Buffs, if you open a case request regarding users who are engaged in current or recent misconduct I would certainly be inclined to listen carefully. A large part of my reasoning behind not accepting this case request is that it is based on seemingly random (and inaccurate) allegations by two academics of misconduct from sometimes over nearly twenty years ago - such as the assertion that a user, Halibutt, inserted the claim that "the Germans annihilated 200,000 non-Jewish Poles in a giant gas chamber" into Warsaw concentration camp when they created that article in 2004; when it was in fact another user in 2005 who inserted the note that it was non-Jews: [41].
• User:El C, if you have some evidence that those individuals you name, VM, GCB, and Piotrus, have recently been disrupting Wikipedia, I would find that useful. If there is no evidence, then I don't feel that you need be sorry for giving them another chance. That is what we tend to do on Wikipedia. We rarely say "never", because we do assume that people can improve.
• For those, such as User:Chess, User:Tryptofish, User:Szmenderowiecki, User:Drmies, who are suggesting that User:Chapmansh be named, I am inclined to agree. As a Wikipedian, Chapmansh is aware that the appropriate way to resolve problems on Wikipedia is to use our dispute resolution procedures, including ArbCom. But they have ignored our procedures, and instead have made public accusations against other Wikipedians, some of which appear to be inaccurate, and much of which is raking over old coals for no clear positive reason other than to cause trouble. This is disruptive and inappropriate behaviour. If they were added to this request I would still be inclined to decline as I feel this case request is not focused on recent misconduct. However, if a separate case request were opened naming Chapmansh, I would be inclined to accept. SilkTork (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous request became basically an unworkable vague mess, and we kicked the can down the road. So it is not surprising to find ourselves here again, the problem was not resolved then and clearly it has not gone away. I think it is fairly clear that a full case, one that is not being stage-managed by a banned troll, is needed, so I vote to accept. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the benefit of any outside observers who may not be familiar with how this committee operates: I think it is a good idea for us to be clear from the outset that we absolutely will not be dictating what Wikipedia does or does not say about any aspect of the Holocaust. That is not our role. Our task here is to ferret out who is causing problems in these topic areas, and to remedy those behavioral issues using the tools at our disposal. Some of the tools that could be deployed here include anything from partial blocking and page protection to topic banning or full site banning, among other things. We will not simply be taking this outside paper at face value and banning anyone they identify as a problem.

  This is also not a fast process, if and when a case is accepted, it will be at least a full month before there are any decisions made. We are a committee, not a cop car. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. I did not find the previous case request to be satisfactory and found myself bouncing back and forth a few times, but now I do not think we should kick this can further down the road. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. I'm not necessarily taking the article's claims at face value, but from the statements here and the prior history of the topic area... where there's smoke, there's fire. I'm also not opposed to looking into the possibility of outside help/auditing. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept with trepidation. Agree with GN that Chapmansh should be added as a party, without an assumption that sanctions are being considered, but also without an assumption that an academic paper puts the conduct beyond sanctions, WP:NOTLAB. Agree with Beeblebrox that we should reiterate that ArbCom adjudicates conduct, not content. Also that this is not a fast process. I believe the paper was under preparation for something like a year, and any expectation that the case or its underlying issues will resolve quickly is wishful thinking. Cabayi (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, while remaining nominally inactive. I'm annoyed the personal circumstances have meant I've missed much of this. I have said before that Icewhiz off-wiki behaviour was dreadful, and I'm saddened that we're still dealing with the same issues. Equally, I was persuaded that we should accept the last case even though we didn't. So, I really ought to be happy that there's a case going on here. But I can't get behind this way of working (and it might be simply that I haven't managed to read everything said above here and by email). Firstly, Arbcom just "creating" a case is something that is fraught with problems and secondly, I'm just not seeing what outcomes might help here. We have CT on the area, we have banned those who were causing issues and from the massive list of parties it looks like it's not clear who is the problem. I agree there's an issue with the journal article, and I empathise with those affected - though a public case won't solve that either.
  As I say, I'm inactive, I haven't read everything and I might be missing something - but I don't like it.This whole case smacks of doing something for the sake of doing something combined with throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. Neither are things we should be doing as a committee. Worm^TT(talk) 16:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Frankly my first choice would be not to include Klein for the reasons I've stated here and in an extended discussion on arbwiki. However, rather than have a plurality of Arbs make the call (as the issue is complex enough that several active arbs have indicated they'd abstain) I support this as I think this motion can garner consensus support among arbs. As several editors and arbs have pointed out, there's no denying that Chapmansh is a party to the incident that spurred the case and being a party to the case does not mean that they are a party to misconduct. If Chapmansh has violated policies or guidelines as an editor we should absolutely take action on it. However, what Klein did in authoring this paper did not violate OUTING and we can and should say that now. I hope points two and three are sufficient a safeguard against this being a precedent for chilling the speech of academics studying Wikipedia or journalists writing about it. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Barkeep. I agree completely that Chapmansh is a party to the incident that spurred the case. While I understand where the concerns about a chilling effect are coming from, I don't think it would be a significant issue. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. My starting point is an AGF assumption that a professor who teaches Wikipedia, and is a Wikipedian, has an anti-COI, a perfect alignment of interest with the community in our continual improvement. Enabling, even encouraging, them to participate in the case is (imo) the opposite of a chilling effect. While there is no "immunity" for reporters, from what we've seen so far we don't anticipate sanctions toward Chapmansh. As Barkeep pointed out, being a party to the case does not mean that they are a party to misconduct. Cabayi (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. I have a very many conflicting thoughts on this matter, but rather than ramble and repeat large portions of what has already been said, I will simply support. Primefac (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. What a writer, journalist, or academic, such as Klein, does and writes about is their affair, and nothing to do with the Committee. However, when a Wikipedian is thought to have attacked and disparaged other Wikipedians, either on Wikipedia or on external sites, then we look into it. It will be worthwhile to look into if Chapmansh did inappropriately target certain individuals and cause them unnecessary harm. SilkTork (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Cabayi and SilkTork. — Wug·a·po·des 20:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. This motion (and particularly the 3rd bullet) should not be treated as precedential by either committees or community members in the future. Essentially the whole committee that discussed this motion and which is now voting on it agreed with the set of pros and cons associated with including or excluding chapmansh as a party (many of which were drawn from the community's statements). We came (and had come) to the agreement already that we did not consider this specific paper to be OUTING, so this motion makes it clear that we will not be taking further evidence on the point. It was a compromise to join the two internal camps on the point of whether to include her. Izno (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @Tryptofish, "personal attack"? No. But to me at least, it would still be removed as out of scope as established by this motion. Izno (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

8. I think this provides an imperfect, but workable, middle path that tries to minimize the chilling effect on Wikipedia criticism created by dragging someone to arbcom who is not an active Wikipedia. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think its a bad idea for its long term implications but I won't stand in the way of the Committee and Community's wishes here. Edit for clarification: the "bad idea" here is the inclusion of a user who hasn't edited the topic area, who has less than 500 edits, and who seems to have an account almost solely for Wiki-ed. Including them creates a chilling effect that this motion I just don't think fixes. Further, we aren't including the other author, because they don't happen to have an account. The only thing this is doing is telling academics "don't make an account if you wanna write here". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]