Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) & Evidence summary — Analysis & Arbitrator Questions (Talk)  — Proposed decision (Talk)

Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)

Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023

Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed

Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk), Firefly (Talk), MJL (Talk), ToBeFree (Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk), Primefac (Talk), Wugapodes (Talk)

Extension

Yes, I know, if it's summarized, I can keep adding. However, I'm at 2376 words for my initial submission (I'm doing a lot of explaining so hopefully arbitrators won't get lost). May I go to 2400 words for my initial submission, and then I'll stick to 1000 words once I get that initial submission summarized. Pretty please? Ealdgyth (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

​Genuinely out of curiosity, is the content so interlaced/connected that it requires the 2400 words to lay out a solid initial platform? In discussing with the other drafters there is some hesitation with granting this because it makes for a very large chunk of text that needs summarising. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example for something that has been in the article The Holocaust in Poland since 2009 - so I decided it didn't need to be in the evidence after I wrote it up, but that gives a feel for why longer explanations are needed:

"The Polish Government in Exile, headquartered in London, also provided special assistance – funds, arms, and other supplies – to Jewish resistance organizations such as the Jewish Combat Organization and the Jewish Military Union." this is sourced to Contested Memories, specifically the article by Dariusz Stola entitled "The Polish Government-in-Exile and the Final Solution" which article is much more than just a discussion of some funds/arms/etc provided to the Jewish resistance movements. On page 86 Stola says "But the government in exile paid less attention to Jewish matters than one might have supposed, particularly from today's perspective." and then on page 90 "Jewish leaders abroad were prodding the government in exile to broadcast by radio an appeal to the Polish population to aid Polish Jewry. But for several months the government resisted, offering various explanations. Eventually, General Sikorski made such an appeal during his speech broadcasted to Poland on 4 May 1943...." which came after news of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising began...(it began 19 April 1943 and was mostly over by 29 April) Stola also notes that Zegota didn't start giving aid to Jews until 1942. I'll note that Stola goes to some length into WHY so much of the aid/efforts were late or didn't accomplish much - and that not all of the reasons were antisemitism, but I would expect that more of Stola's nuance would come through in this section, instead the article is just used to source the fact that some aid went to Jewish resistance groups (while other sources dispute how much actual aid actually went to the fighters or ghetto inhabitants..). Our article highlights the aid provided but glosses over the lateness and the limited nature of that aid. The fact that Zegota wasn't set up until Sept 1942 which was AFTER the majority of the Jews in Poland were killed isn't brought out either. This sentence was added Special:Diff/284696682 in 2009 by Poeticbent (talk · contribs).

Now I could just say "Special:Diff/284696682 This 2009 edit by Poeticbent (talk · contribs) cherrypicks Stola's argument and leaves out details that are less flattering to the Polish side while slanting the article to be positive to the Polish Government in Exile." but then you would not have the quotes and the ability to see for yourself the information in the original quotation.

If you think that this sort of evidence is not helpful, then I can spare myself a lot of effort and just not submit any - because none of the information is "easy" and it's all mostly about source slanting and misuse rather than the "easy" conduct issues of calling each other names. Its up to the arbs, frankly, but if you're not willing to look at the subtle evidence of misuse of sources, it's not worth my time to keep working on this. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So I am the arb that was skeptical about larger submissions. I remain skeptical but given the scope of this case, if we weren't doing summary style we'd likely be handing out lots of word extensions. So sure let's try the 2400 words as it can help us decide what to do if we get further such requests. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like some input on the above example - is it helpful with the longer explanation to understand the issue or is this not the sort of stuff (other than the fact that it's old - I know it's old and from Poeticbent so thats why I wasn't planning on submitting it once I got it written up fully but it makes a good example at least) you want and need? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

To quote one former arb there is abundant ArbCom precedent that deliberately contributing false, misleading, distorted, or very unfairly weighted content can rise to the level of user misconduct. and that kind of evidence is how one would go about proving such a thing. So I would say yes it's useful. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think a combination of the two would be helpful; reading your example paragraph it is not immediately obvious what we are supposed to get out of it, but if you started with "Poeticbent cherrypicks arguments..." or similar it gives more context to the text that follows it. Both are helpful in the long run though. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me just +1 Primefac's advice to start with what we're supposed to be looking for as we read rather than making it a conclusion. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me know if the reworked format works for you guys? I'll point out that I'm at this point just trying to find the errors/problems and document them, and I'm approaching the topic area as a "are there issues with the articles and what are they" rather than a trying to prove or disprove the Grabowski and Klein paper, so I'm doing a lot of digging (without reference to the G&K paper, by comparing the wikipedia articles to the sources given as well a other sources available). Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin) Small note if it helps, keeping in mind that I have no experience with Arbitration. In trying to read your submission Ealdgyth I did find it a little difficult to follow and I was wondering if more extensive formatting may not help without adding words. E.g. using the {{tq}} template for quotes (whether from sources, articles, or other editors) which helps them stand out. Additional line breaks and bullet points and such are also free. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

My involvement with the subject area is very sparse, but I read about this controversy off-wiki and have been interested in possibly contributing in a very limited way to it. I have maybe three or four diffs, based on sparse involvement. Ealdgyth evidently is far more extensively involved, and she is to be commended for going to all the trouble to dig into the articles in question. Given the unusual and I might add rather vague nature of this case, I would recommend that Arbcom give latitude to editors wishing to provide evidence.

I wonder if perhaps there might be some way of editors to provide summaries of evidence on the evidence page, and then footnotes to longer discussions on a separate page? Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Summarization

I see you say that summarization should "avoid evaluative terms". I guess that's where the part about the Naliboki massacre article being "improved" got removed. I'm not going to say y'all are wrong to do that. I will say it's frustrating. My entire purpose was to say that the area needs its editors, imperfect as we are. That was lost. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

We've been discussing this very point behind the scenes. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny we decided to open the analysis phase now. I have copied your entire evidence submission over to analysis as we agreed that the point you were trying to make with the submission needed consideration and discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Adoring nanny (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

What counts: procedural questions

1. Am I correct in the reading that I should leave the summarizing of threads to arbitrators?
2. Does summarizing reset the diff count as well as word limits?
3. In documenting an edit war is it possible to just provide a date range in the history or should every tit for tat be diffed?

Thanks. Trying to triage which of several related possible comments is most useful or important Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) I suppose it depends on the size and breadth of the edit war. We don't just want a link to the history of a page, but if there is a specific range that can be linked to, that would be better. For example, "at Foo users X and Y each reverted the other six times in the course of an hour" could be supported by a link to the specific history of Foo showing those dozen edits. On the other hand, "User Z edit warred at Bar" could easily be supported by four diff links. Primefac (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Evidences of what?

I ask completely seriously. This phase is to collect evidence for what exactly? I have never been involved in ArbCom, so the whole procedure is unclear to me. Marcelus (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of behaviour of the named parties. Does someone edit war, bludgeon, or otherwise cause issue in the topic area? We want to know. Is an editor harassing another editor? We want to know. Did you get accused of 3RR but two of the reverts were perfectly within policy? We want to know. For what it is worth, you are not obligated to provide evidence, so if you cannot think of any specific examples of editor conduct that we should know about, you do not necessarily have to go find any. Let us know if we can clarify further. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that I don't have to, and at this point I don't plan to. It just wasn't clear what evidences this page is suppose to gather. So as I understant at this point, users can report any wrong conduct of the listed users. Marcelus (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

any wrong conduct of the listed users - within the scope of the case, yes. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek BLPCRIME vio

I was not at all aware of what VM wrote about, I did not know what Icewhiz resorted to. For me, it completely changes the optics of the whole issue, it puts Icewhiz, the people defending him, the G&K article in a completely different light. I imagine that most users not familiar with the case then have similar feelings. Personally, it takes away my interest to edit articles in this topic, or on Wikipedia in general.

I imagine the admins have the ability to verify what was said, but it seems to me that in light of what @Volunteer Marek wrote, the "violated WP:BLPCRIME using shocking language" allegation made by @El C should be removed. Because to an outsider who doesn't know the context, it sounds very different than to a person like me who has learned the context. Marcelus (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to wait for El C to see Special:Diff/1144789105 and to re-evaluate the situation themselves based on this information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Icewhiz is not a party to this case. Icewhiz's conduct has been evaluated and, in what is a huge understatement, he is wholly and completely incompatible with being a Wikipedian. We do not in anyway need to evaluate that. What we do need to evaluate if any of the named parties have had conduct which violate our policies and guidelines (and at least for this first week evidence of editors who should be added as parties). That is what evidence should focus on. So extensive discussion of IW will ultimately be just as out of scope as discussing any other non-party editor. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree. I do think that the focus should be on recent ("post-Icewhiz") activity in this topic area. But whether we like it or not, Icewhiz's fingerprints are all over this topic area and the lead up to this specific case. His actions and the surrounding events are directly linked to and provide necessary context for the issues that this case will address. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I am well aware of the death threats, etc., as for over a year I was pretty much the sole admin who dealt with these on a regular basis. My emails with VM number in the dozens, with many perhaps most, concerning this. But just to put the bluster of falsely accusing me of "victim blaming" (a favourite of some as of late) into context — this concerns threats of violence against minors, specifically (how that is phrased). As mentioned, if ArbCom wants to give VM permission to state it like that on the project, wherever, whenever, I suppose that would be their prerogative. But I'd submit, Barkeep49, that it'd be simplest to start with just by undeleting it. Anyway, regardless, I can take a hint, so I'll leave you all to it. El_C 20:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In light of what Barkeep49 posted, I'm uncomfortable with El_C dismissing Volunteer Marek's comments as false accusations, and I suspect ArbCom might find it useful if El_C were to explain why he regards it as not having been victim blaming. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This comment only speaks for myself and I have not discussed it with any other arb or the committee. @El C, I think your interpretation of our BLP policy is correct and the idea that it only applies to article topics is at odds with the policy. I don't think you should take as a hint that we want you to leave us. If we'd wanted to hint at that we would have removed or hatted the commentary, not summarized it and posted it for discussion. I think you could potentially have knowledge of a lot of pertinent evidence for this case and hope you, and other admins who've worked the area, will help provide evidence about what's happened. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49, so are you going to undelete it? Anyway, I've been prevented from advancing the point that both VM and GCB should have been on their best behaviour in the last few weeks, especially, due to this impending case; that the evidence I presented be viewed in that context. The forcing of no context has shaken my faith in these proceedings. As for Tryptofish's provocations on cue (which are ultimately a distraction): I never dismissed the accusation as false. And their view that I should prove a negative, as in ArbCom might find it useful if El_C were to explain why he regards it as not having been victim blaming — is, to borrow a word, laughable. But also par for the course, so no surprise there. El_C 21:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a partially redacted version of the rev-del-ed edit could be made public. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

El_C I agree that your main point is when these happened not just that they happened, and I can see how the evidence-analysis split makes it harder to point that out. I've added to the evidence summary some more context in hopes of better articulating that point. Personally, I think the analysis page is a good location for a lot of your thoughts: they're more persistent than the evidence page (where it may get summarized and collapsed), and it makes commentary easier to follow than on the evidence page. If you still think the cons outweigh the pros, that's useful feedback; we're still trying this new workflow, so it's good to know what works and what doesn't for participants. — Wug·a·po·des 07:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wug, but it has no word limit. How is one even expected to engage VM's "analysis" (to borrow from his own El_C's "evidence") when it's that lengthy and that scattered? The page's somewhat free-for-all format strikes me as problematic and prone to filibustering. El_C 07:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

User:El_C, there is a word limit. It's 1000 words. My "analysis" or "evidence" or whatever it's supposed to be called was around 950 words. And it didn't exceed the "diff limit" either. It is not scattered. It is here where it was moved to. You can engage it there. I've made only a few comments/evidence presentations here so far so I am most definetly not "filibustering" anything. Volunteer Marek 17:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've waited a day to see what replies might come from Arbs before saying this. It seems to me to be settled that El_C's use of rev-del was according to policy and that whatever BLP considerations went into that use have been endorsed by ArbCom. There is a separate and significant issue of whether Volunteer Marek was subjected to severe harassment, and that also seems to be settled that he was. So the remaining issue, which cannot be evaluated by those of us who cannot see the rev-del-ed edit, is to what degree Volunteer Marek was entitled to comment on that harassment, and to what degree it was a failure to maintain the expected good behvior at this point in time. I still do think that ArbCom could either give a partially redacted version of the edit, or a partially redacted summary of what was salient about it, and it would be helpful to do so. I find some of El_C's comments to me just above to have been unprovoked and incompatible with ArbCom's stated rules of decorum on case pages. I'll note: the bluster of falsely accusing me of "victim blaming" followed by I never dismissed the accusation as false. Also, I never asked El_C to prove a negative, because I never asked him to prove anything – just to explain his reasoning. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

With regards to the Analysis page, El_C is correct that there's no stated word or diff limits. There were community comments at the beginning of the case that we should be more lenient with these limits in this case, so the thinking goes that word limits on the analysis page could disproportionately bind those doing a good job of providing analysis. You're right that we should think more about how that might be exploited as well. As for your question, "how is one even expected to engage" with lengthy and scattered commentary, I think there are some options. I remember going through the AA3 evidence and seeing you reply with something along the lines of "that's too much for me to adequately respond to, please do a better job condensing". Speaking as an arbitrator, I found those kinds of comments helpful. On this side of the evidence, it can be difficult to pin down filibustering or sealion-ing because it might just look like a normal discussion (or a normal flame war). Having someone say why a discussion broke down helps identify that more clearly later. So that's one option that I actually learned from you. As for the "scattered" issue, you could make multiple posts on multiple pages (which is probably the worst option), or you could make one comment where you quote from the scattered bits which helps unify the commentary. These are more workarounds than solutions, but I hope they're useful while we figure out what changes might be useful to this case structure going forward. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des 18:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But how do you know it's 1,000 words, VM? And I don't want to engage in discourse that asks: How would YOU feel if someone threatened to rape your kids? And so on and so forth. I've pretty much given up on you grasping that: (1) This piece of evidence is not the sole basis for my calling for your previous EE TBAN to be reinstated — I also advocated for the same thing in the last arbitration case that was tragically declined. Because I feel you often go out of your way to be incendiary; consistently failing to conduct yourself dispassionately. Which drives users away — whether that's the actual goal, I dunno, but it is the reality. Again, context matters (as Wug notes above).

And (2) That you continuously fail to understand that even reprehensible persons are afforded the rights and protections of WP:BLP. Despite you wanting to strip them of these, it doesn't work that way. As admins, we cannot pick and choose which persons receive protection under that policy — it apply to everyone. I also realize it's convenient to forget that I am the admin who helped you combat IW's harassment, possibly more than anyone else; that I am the admin who blocked more IW socks than possibly anyone else. Though it did provide an opening for Trypto's underhanded disparagement against myself, regardless of the sheer incompetence of their line of attack.

Finally, I'll quote myself from the infamous Feb 2021 RSN thread where I had said to you: You well know how sympathetic I am (and consistently have been) to your devastating Icewhiz plight, but, I'm letting you know that using his specter as a blunt instrument, that's a problem. It's a problem when it distracts from a matter-of-fact discussion about content and it's a problem whenever it injects further hostility into the APL mix, for naught. Yet here we are again. You still think the abuse you suffered gives you special license to disregard a pivotal policies, like BLP (which has possible legal ramifications), but that is in fact not so. El_C 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

People who are perceived as taking Icewhiz's POV are accused of being socks or proxies

Moved from Special:PermaLink/1144839964#Evidence presented by Clovermoss

I'm not really involved in the content area and I don't have any expertise. Initially, I planned not to comment here, but I notice that my edit at the case request has since been revdelled. I doubt that action was taken because of what I said. So I wanted to point out a few things even if they're somewhat tangential so the average person can actually read them. [1] and [2] by GizzyCatBella. This edit by Nableezy seems to indicate that this is a prexisting issue in the topic area.[3] There's also this more recent edit by VolunteerMarek at a Signpost talk page [4]. As I said at the case request, I'm sure this area actually is rife with sockpuppets but that doesn't mean everyone who agrees about something is one. I've also seen comments implying that Icewhiz was directly involved in the authorship of the journal article we're all talking about. As an uninvolved bystander, this sounds absurd. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have since noticed that it's only the diff that was revdelled and my statement is still present at the case request. I'd like to apologize to ToBeFree for not reading their response more thoroughly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There was a request on my talk page to provide more context in the how I think this applies to the case. Honestly, I'm not sure even if my observations are all that relevant (feel free to ultimately ignore if they are). I've had Levivich's talk page on my watchlist for years, so I've seen some interactions that have left me with unease. I've seen comments that imply Levivich edited under a different account or has some sort of association with Icewhiz (both on his talk page and elsewhere) from parties in this case. I'd imagine that if you're already editing in a tense topic area, it isn't really that great from a collaborative perspective to constantly feel like you're inherently not someone to be trusted. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss, no worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of what? & suggestions

The central issue of the case seems to be an allegation that an entire set of articles is biased, possibly deliberately although I don’t know how you can ascribe “deliberate” behavior to a herd of cats. “Evidence” typically is of alleged conduct issues that are the subject of the case, but on the main topic none have been defined.

Wikipedia is influential. Contentious topics are all where there is a real world contest where the “sides” see leaning the Wikipedia towards their view as a way to further their view or cause. Wikipedia policies and guidelines enable, allow and reward this POV pushing as long as it is done in a Wiki-savvy way. And such is common.

If this proceeds along the normal arbcom lines, the most likely outcome is a finding that there are no arbcom-level conduct violations, which may be a useful finding. Or a misfire of sanctioning people who don’t deserve it due to a SOP of finding somebody to blame. Meanwhile Arbcom is stuck with the usual eternal problem on contentious articles, and/or no resolution on this issue. Since Arbcom is not in a position to make the necessary policy and guideline changes to help the problem, it can look like a dilemma.

IMO there is a way to make some genuine progress. You’d need to work creatively on the edges of what’s in policies and guidelines. And since you’d be doing so, the understanding would be that you’d be providing findings and guidance, not sanctions. This would be to review by a standard that editors should be guided by the concept that their highest and only priority when editing should be to create quality articles that follow the general goals of Wikipedia. And so not by other outside POV’s. Outside POV-tilted editing goes against this principle.

In that case an item being reviewed could be whether or not folks are following that principle. In order to get this sorted out (vs. just forcing folks to just dig in defensively) and acknowledging that it’s a bit creative, you should state at the start that any determinations against this standard would be findings and guidance, not sanctions.

There was also some discussion of some potential partial outing or doxing issues. This is an important and serious conduct area. It appears that this may involve “changing the degree off publicness” type issues in which case handling the issue publicly would further the harm to any victims. A good start there would be to say that any evidence regarding this should be provided in private. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried to express that the issue at hand relates to "conflict of interest" with "facts being subjective."

Real "evidence" (and this might be true on a variety of topics being edited mono-culturally {a focus in on one topic set} from dinosaurs, to women scientists, and to Nazi Hunting on Wikipedia) is that a single individual or group of individuals can dominate topics which as a result are not subject to consensus building, vetting, or proper weighting.

Conflict of Interests may lead to issue framing and the setting of narratives. Where an area of editing is dominated by a few individuals there are effectively no controls, checks, and balances to validate content, assure it is weighted correctly, and is neutral.

Going a step further notice boards (and longstanding social relationships) destroy both new participation on the platform and the factual input of information that deviates from the narrative being set by the people who "own" the subject matter.

It's my opinion, that searching for "diffs" won't accomplish anything as the topic speaks to "alternate facts." The real question is whether or not a group of individuals are dominating a set of topics and therefore setting a narrative.

What would provide usable evidence would be a study of the edit histories of the accused to identify the range of topics edited and the extent to which the notice board process has been used or misused.

The issue at hand is "conflict of interest" and the proper course of action would be a wide-ranging topic ban.

(I would appreciate it if this comment was not reverted or subject to retaliation) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Regarding your "a group of individuals are dominating a set of topics and therefore setting a narrative" that is basically a sum of individual POV editors/editing and is (unfortunately) commonplace and accepted as long as it is done in a wiki-clever way. IMO that means it would be unfair to sanction people for doing it, if just that. But my suggested middle ground is to make findings to identify that behavior and provide guidance to stop it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

All current versions of these pages reflect WP:Consensus. Yes, there is a general issue that I saw in all subject areas: WP:CONSENSUS may override WP:NPOV during RfCs and other discussions, even though NPOV is the most important rule. How this can be fixed short of creating editorial boards? I have no idea. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd quibble and add a note on your first sentence. A "Consensus" in the context of your usage is a sort of supermajority (yes, I know it's not a vote) and certainly not everything in the articles has received that. Second, even actual consensuses on article can be badly flawed in our easily gameable processes and rules. We have editorial boards which is groups of editors at articles but gaming of/ gamed rules overrides those types of of deliberations. The answer is to fix the rules which is beyond the purview of Arbcom. My idea was to suggest something that Arbcom can probably do. North8000 (talk)

My understanding of WP:Consensus is a little different, i.e. it says: "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." and so on. Hence, if someone made an edit, it did not cause anyone's objections, and it stays for a long time in the article - that would be current consensus. No majority required. If an edit causes objections, then it became a matter of discussion, dispute resolution and so on. But again, however this might be resolved, it will become new consensus. Perhaps this policy should be changed? Yes, maybe. If Arbs could suggest something, that would be great, I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments presented by Volunteer Marek

Moved from Special:Permalink/1144841678#Evidence presented by Volunteer Marek

@Clovermoss - I did not accuse the person of being a sock puppet or proxy. I said they were involved. I will post evidence relating to sock puppets etc (other users/accounts) later.

It’s also noteworthy that all evidence presented so far, except for Ealdgyth, is about “what happened after the publication of the paper” rather than anything prior to it.

(and "you posted too many diffs at AE so you should be topic banned"... seriously?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Clovermoss as it was not present in the original post. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Date ranges and context

I am sorry if this has been addressed, though my knowledge on arbcom processes is limited and I wanted to clarify a few things. What are the relevant date ranges here? Are we allowed to submit evidence from 2021, as long as it is relevant to this case? Are past diffs of exchanges which pertain to to this case valid even if they had—at any point—included responses from banned/no longer active users who had been previously sanctioned in "Holocaust in Poland," broadly construed? For example: let's say there is a diff that seems pertinent to this case, but it is selected from a longer exchange that also includes a response from an editor who had been globally blocked as a result of previous arbcom; would that in and of itself invalidate the evidence? Thanks. Ppt91^talk 17:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)