Question

When you ask Issue: If a newspaper publishes an article critical of an editor's editing, can the editor remove that newspaper article, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia?, I'd agree this is not best practice. But what if you adjust it as follows: Issue: If a newspaper publishes an article critical of an editor's editing, and this article is part of a lenghty, on- and off-wiki harassment campaign, repeating claims of a site-banned editor (where said claims led to the said site-ban), can the editor remove that newspaper article, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia?? Bonus points for considering WP:OWH (particularly the part that "Off-wiki harassment, including through the use of external links, will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was quoting directly from the coin thread. And I said so. If what you suggest might be true, then you definitely should request ArbCom to accept the case, investigate, and remove the corruption, stem and roots. Originally I had named IceWhiz as a party but Beeblebrox decided to delete that name. It is not a foregone conclusion that you were wrong and somebody else is right. It could be the case that you were right and other people are wrong. Or maybe each party is partially wrong. We won’t know unless we have a case. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we had the case. And then the follow up, in the form of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Icewhiz_banned, where the Committee stated, pretty clearly, that "The Arbitration Committee has received convincing evidence that Icewhiz has engaged in off-wiki harassment of multiple editors. Consequently, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia." What's ambiguous about this?
Also, regarding your new revelations, can you tell us if you contacted Icewhiz or he contacted you? I find it very concerning, in either case, that you repeat on Wikipedia, the words and opinions of an editor whom ArbCom, per above, found to have "engaged in off-wiki harassment of multiple editors". Note not ifs, but, qualifications. ArbCom found the evidence of Icewhiz harassment convincing to state it as a FACT. Icewhiz had his talk page access revoked, and he was even banned from Wikipediocracy (and that's not easy). By quoting his denials on Wikipedia, you are empowering him and enabling his WP:HARASSMENT. Please stop and refactor your post. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I posted right under the arbitrators’ noses. They are not shy and will surely speak up or make adjustments should it be appropriate to do so. Rest assured that I have no intent to raise this issue anywhere else on Wikipedia, nor do I edit in the topic area of concern. Jehochman Talk 15:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will add my two cents to your talk page discussion, this time related to numbers of AE requests(sadly can't include in the statement because I'm well over the limit).
First, VM has a point about the rate of of AE/ArbCom reports; but here's the thing: this metric doesn't matter, either. What matters is that in how many reports are VM, Piotrus, GCB, Levivich and other users being listed as filing parties or accused parties; and after that, we should divide it by the time the users have been active. Simply making a statement is not a problem in itself, because people may submit opinions. Even this is not the most accurate metric, because, just like in this case, we might have cases (just like this one) where there's a group of editors implied in tendentious editing but the immediate parties are the ones listed. This one requires too much analysis though. As a side note, while theoretically filing an AE/ANI request is not problematic, either, it does indicate deep dissatisfaction with the user and probably a time sink that the users have been in.
My calculations show that, for VM example, we have
VM: AE: 27 A/R*: 6 (?), AN+ANI+3RR: ca. 100 Total: 130+
GCB: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:
Piotrus: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:
Levivich: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:
François Robere: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:
Nihil novi: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:
Buidhe: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:
Slatersteven: AE: A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:
Me: AE: - A/R: 1 AN+ANI+3RR: 2 Total: 3
Ermenrich: AE: - A/R: AN+ANI+3RR: Total:

* - includes WP:ARCA cases Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki - maybe notify individuals that you are doing these strange mathematics about them here? What do you think Szmederowiecki, good idea? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella The only individuals that I've made these these strange mathematics about are VM and me. I have been part of A/R and ANI threads, which you may perfectly easily search (this case, an ANI case about editing in Jan Żaryn article and an early case about an I/P topic). VM has already had numerous threads. Unfortunately, A/R only has an index, instead of searchable text, so 6 is only an estimate (three cases are mentioned in WP:APLRS, at least one is mentioned outside that scope, and we have this case right now; probably I haven't captured a complaint or two). There were 24 AE reports explicitly mentioning VM as party and 3 that indirectly also involved a complaint against VM while not listing him as party. There were 90 cases on ANI searchable by template term "User:Volunteer Marek" + a few where VM was complained about and where the template title was not used, so that was estimated at around 100, give or take a few. Again, this is not a perfect number because some of the mentions as party involve some more routine complaints about obviously WP:NOTHERE users, so the number which we are looking for (A/R+AE+AN+ANI+3RR+other conduct forum complaints due to that person's disruptiveness or dislike of their demeanour) will certainly be lower than the total. But simply correlating AE appearance with disruption, without context, is misleading. Therefore, the fact that Levivich appears in 36 AE threads (VM's words) means little in terms of asserted disruption (for instance, Levivich is not mentioned in any AE thread as party at all, and I could only count one or two times when he was directly accused or accusing other parties outside the scope of a statement (i.e. when other users, together with the accused party, are implicated).
Because the same argument was made by Volunteer Marek, and it is also deceptive despite being somewhat better shaped, you are right that he deserves a ping, though I didn't really think of it initially given that the calculations are based on public information and by no means I meant to gossip about VM behind his back. If you present such calculations for arbiters' consideration, put at least some effort into it and do it properly, searching through all conduct dispute archives, if necessary, and include disclaimers about the numbers if warranted. And the rate of disruption, too.
(Other users have not been notified because there isn't anything I've written about them yet, other than that they will very probably become parties to this case. I hope the OP of the arbitration case will fill in the metrics according to the template I've presented, so that ArbCom has better grasp of the situation).Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, when searching user names at AE, don't forget about prior usernames. VM's calculation at AE is off because he's searching for "VM" but counting since 2005, but he's only been named "VM" since like 2010. Levivich 14:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bunch of thoughts to share with you all. I need a little time to put together my thoughts. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's ideas

The problem is that our articles about The Holocaust in Poland have been identified as seriously biased by the world's leading experts on the history of The Holocaust. Haaretz, the newspaper of record (read what that term means) for Israel received a tip from a now-banned Wikipedia editor. They did not trust this editor and independently verified the problem with experts. They in no way rely upon the banned editor. Haaretz published a story in 2019. They remain interested in the topic and there probably will be follow up reporting and academic publishing.

Now that we are on notice about defects in our Holoucaust in Poland articles, we have an obligation to fix them. This area has been under discretionary sanctions for long enough that if that were sufficient, it should have already allowed the problems to be solved. Instead, many of our best editors have been driven from the topic by poor behavior. We need to create conditions that allow these editors to return.

I am not yet assigning blame to anyone other than the banned editor. Other editors may have been goaded by him to react in ways at were counterproductive, but if they self-correct, that can be the end of it. I do not want to sanction anybody, if it can be avoided. I'd prefer that we develop a consensus that the articles should be improved and we follow good editing practices to ensure that they are improved.

  1. Listen to expert feedback about our articles related to The Holocaust in Poland. As an example, in writing featured articles such as Planet Nine and Gamma ray burst, I sought out expert feedback. Expert feedback is valuable.
  2. Identify the best sources for each relevant article. We should rely on the best sources and generally avoid using fringe or weak sources.
  3. Compare our articles to the best sources and fix any factual inaccuracies, and make sure the articles are properly cited to the best sources.
  4. To the extent that the best sources disagree, we present the range of opinions in proportion, per WP:N, but we still exclude all fringe and weak sourcing.
  5. We must be especially careful that there has been a nationalistic movement in Poland to whitewash Holocaust history to show Poland in a more favorable light. Wikipedia is not participating in this movement to create a revisionist history of The Holocaust in Poland. We are just going to follow the most reliable academic sources.
  6. We need to be polite to each other, especially editors with different points of view. We must avoid disruptive discussion tactics like Gish galloping, tag teaming and battleground mentality. We must welcome and support our best editors who have a reputation for writing high quality, neutral, and verifiable content.

I hope all editors can agree to the above principles. I want to fix the problem, not sanction anyone. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I’ll play along

I guess we’ll see if your comments are just blowing smoke or if there’s something more serious behind them. Let’s put that aside. Here you say I just want the articles to be fixed, and for the former good faith editors of these articles to feel secure in returning to work on them. Ok. WHICH articles do you think need to be fixed? WHAT are the problems that need to be fixed, specifically? You’re going around making a lot of vague accusations and engaging in a lot of innuendo but completely refuse to actually spell it out when asked.

Furthermore, these “good faith editors” are free to edit anything they want, as long as they’re not under sanction. Like any other editors, they’re expected to follow policy, engage on talk, and occasionally put up with the fact that someone might disagree with them. Neither Ealdgyth nor Emenrich that you mention elsewhere have ever been “attacked” or reported, or anything like that. There’s absolutely nothing stopping them from trying to edit the relevant articles. All that has ever happened is that someone disagreed with them. Hell, in Ealdgyth’s case even that is not true - I don’t think anyone ever disagreed or reverted them (Emenrich is a different story since they mostly just jumped in to take gratuitous swipes at editors he doesn’t like rather than produce any meaningful content but whatever).

Now contrast this “oh no, someone disagreed with me so I’ll never edit this topic area ever again, I’ve been driven away!!!” superficial claims, with the fact that other editors have received death threats etc. in attempts to drive them off. You’re kind of missing the forest for the trees here. Volunteer Marek 18:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This requires a detailed investigation. I see indications of serious problems, namely editors such as these ones becoming disgusted and walking away. We should ask them why they feel uncomfortable. I don't want to presume.
I suspect some current editors have been impacted by poor behavior of the banned editor, and maybe by past battles with other groups. Long ago I remember disputes between Russians and Poles that become hostile. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyhow, an editor can get riled up and conditioned to respond in a way that is offputting to neutral editors. I don't want to sanction such a person. I want to point out the issue and see if they can dial it back. Maybe post shorter comments. Maybe assume more good faith. Maybe try harder to avoid repeating the same arguments argumentum ad nauseum.
Additionally, an editor can lose neutral perception because of the culture they live in. I am probably too pro-American on some issues, as an example. We all need to be aware of that. Natural human tendencies should not be sanctionable if a person tries to correct them. Jehochman Talk 18:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s something that “requires a detailed investigation” how do you know it’s true? You state with 100% certainty that there’s a problem but when asked to explain specifically what the problem is your answer is “I don’t know, it must be investigated”. And make a lot of unfounded accusations against other editors. Do you see the problem with that approach? Volunteer Marek 18:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess, I'm a tad perplexed by your request to Arbcom, if there's no false info in any of the related articles. But, I won't stress too much about it. PS - Barkeep, that's five (edit-conflict) times within 24 hrs, we've edited or posted at the exact same time. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problems could include false info or undue weight. Maybe there’s been cherry picking of facts or sources. What I understand is that when experts look at these articles they think that they are not good. And we need to figure out why some of our high-quality editors were driven away from working on them even though discretionary sanctions were in place which should have maintained a suitable editing environment. Something is wrong and needs to be adjusted. Jehochman Talk 19:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Give a specific example please. “Problems could exist” anywhere at any time on Wikipedia. It’s a meaningless statement. And again, there have been no “high quality editors driven away” (well, maybe there have but it’s not the ones you’re thinking of). Volunteer Marek 19:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, one of these supposed "high quality editors who were driven away", User:Ermenrich, since they arrived out of nowhere in 2018 has made a total of... 7 edits to article space in this topic area. That's right. Seven. 7. Siete. Lol. Seven edits over the period of three years. And guess what? None of these actually involved myself or Piotrus. So here's a thing. You can't be "driven away" if you've never been there to begin with. You can't "return" to where you've never been. This is just nonsense. Yes, Ermenrich has made some comments in related discussions but that's actually the weird thing - for someone who has almost never edited in this topic area, why does he keep jumping into drama board discussion about it? Volunteer Marek 22:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, no editor should ever feel the need to walk away from any content dispute, out of intimidation. I've little knowledge of the topic about concentration camps in Poland & so I encourage all who do have an interest in it, to dig in your heels. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email?

You wrote to Tony that you had sent ArbCom an email. I don't see it, including in our moderation queue. Can you please send again? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed WormTT. I had hoped he would share it, but maybe I didn't explicitly ask him to. He may share it with the rest of the Committee. If you remind me of the email address I can also forward a copy. Jehochman Talk 18:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you a copy and you can forward it. Jehochman Talk 18:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, it is Special:Email/Arbitration Committee. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

nableezy - 16:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hereby ban you from my talk page forever. Do not ever post here again. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a required administrative notice, and you are an admin on this project and are required to abide by WP:ADMINCOND. I will continue posting required notices to your page, but have no interest in discussing anything else with you. nableezy - 17:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy is not admin Shrike (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I had a lot of respect for him prior to this. I'll fix that. Jehochman Talk 17:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments of other editors

You removed my comment from here. --> [1]. Please don't do this anymore, I left that for N. Thank you.- GizzyCatBella🍁 17:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gizzy, you are absolutely right. I am sorry for that. It was an edit conflict that I meant to fix. Jehochman Talk 17:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was a mistake? Okay no problem, I fixed it - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I expect that removal was inadvertent. The software messes up that way sometimes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

I feel like I've become overwrought, and am going to take a break to try to regain perspective. If you need me urgently for any reason, please email. Jehochman Talk 18:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Concentration Camp Arbitration Case Request

Dear Jehochman: In light of your recent comments, the Arbitration Committee is closing your section of the case request. Please refrain from making further changes or additions to your statement. In the event that further submissions are necessary, please direct them to the Arbitration Committee by email. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More